Public Document Pack
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL THURSDAY, 30TH MARCH, 2017
A MEETING of the SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL will be held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER,
COUNCIL HEADQUARTERS, NEWTOWN ST. BOSWELLS on THURSDAY, 30TH MARCH, 2017 at 10.00 AM
J. J. WILKINSON, Clerk to the Council, 23 March 2017
BUSINESS
1. Convener's Remarks.
2. Apologies for Absence.
3. Order of Business.
4. Declarations of Interest.
5. Minute (Pages 1 - 10) 2 mins
Consider Minute of Scottish Borders Council held on 2 March 2017 for approval and signing by the Convener. (Copy attached.) 6. Committee Minutes 5 mins
Consider Minutes of the following Committees:-
(a) Audit & Risk 16 January 2017 (b) Cheviot Area Forum 1 February 2017 (c) Planning & Building Standards 6 February 2017 (d) LLP Strategic Governance Group 7 February 2017 (e) Police, Fire & Rescue and Safer Communities Board 10 February 2017 (f) Executive 14 February 2017 (g) Selkirk Common Good Fund 15 February 2017 (h) Scrutiny 16 February 2017 (i) Civic Government Licensing 17 February 2017 (j) Lauder Common Good Fund 21 February 2017 (k) Hawick Common Good Fund 21 February 2017 (l) Teviot & Liddesdale Area Forum 21 February 2017 (m) Peebles Common Good Fund 1 March 2017 (n) Tweeddale Area Forum 1 March 2017 (o) Berwickshire Area Forum 2 March 2017 (p) Planning & Building Standards 6 March 2017 (q) Jedburgh Common Good Fund 7 March 2017 (r) Executive 7 March 2017 (s) Community Planning Strategic Board 9 March 2017 (t) Galashiels Common Good Fund 9 March 2017 (u) Eildon Area Forum 9 March 2017 (v) Pension Fund 16 March 2017 (w) Executive 21 March 2017
(Please see separate Supplement containing the public Committee Minutes.) 7. Committee Minute Recommendation (Pages 11 - 12) 5 mins
Consider the recommendation made by the Executive Committee 21 March 2017
(Copy attached.) 8. Open Questions 15 mins
9. "Places, People & Planning" A Consultation on the Future of the 10 mins Scottish Planning System (Pages 13 - 114)
Consider report by Service Director Regulatory Services. (Copy attached.) 10. SESTRAN - Move Towards a Model 3 Transport Partnership (Pages 115 15 mins - 148)
Consider report by Service Director Regulatory Services. (Copy attached.) 11. Equality Mainstreaming Report and Equality Outcomes 2017 -2021 20 mins (Pages 149 - 240)
Consider report by the Chief Executive. (Copy attached.) 12. Charity Reorganisation Update (Pages 241 - 250) 10 mins
Consider report by Chief Financial Officer. (Copy attached.) 13. Hawick Action Plan (Pages 251 - 264) 10 mins
Consider report by Corporate Transformation and Services Director. (Copy attached.) 14. Consultation on possible amendment to Councillors Code of Conduct 5 mins (Pages 265 - 268)
Consider report by Service Director Regulatory Services. (Copy attached.) 15. Early Retirement/Voluntary Severance (Pages 269 - 274) 5 mins
Consider report by Chief Executive. (Copy attached.) 16. Any Other Items Previously Circulated
17. Any Other Items Which the Convener Decides Are Urgent
18. Private Business
Before proceeding with the private business, the following motion should be approved:- “That under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the aforementioned Act.” 19. Minute (Pages 275 - 278) 1 mins
Consider private Section of Minute of Scottish Borders Council held on 2 March 2017. (Copy attached.) 20. Committee Minutes
Consider private Sections of the Minutes of the following Committees:-
(a) Planning & Building Standards 6 February 2017 (b) LLP Strategic Governance Group 7 February 2017 (c) Selkirk Common Good Fund 15 February 2017 (d) Scrutiny 16 February 2017 (e) Civic Government Licensing 17 February 2017 (f) Hawick Common Good Fund 21 February 2017 (g) Peebles Common Good Fund 1 March 2017 (h) Planning & Building Standards 6 March 2017 (i) Pension Fund 16 March 2017 (j) Executive 21 March 2017
(Please see separate Supplement containing private Committee Minutes.) 21. Committee Recommendation (Pages 279 - 280) 2 mins
Consider recommendation made by the Pension Fund Committee on 16 March 2017. (Copy attached.)
NOTES 1. Timings given above are only indicative and not intended to inhibit Members’ discussions.
2. Members are reminded that, if they have a pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in any item of business coming before the meeting, that interest should be declared prior to commencement of discussion on that item. Such declaration will be recorded in the Minute of the meeting.
Please direct any enquiries to Louise McGeoch Tel 01835 825005 email [email protected] This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
MINUTE of MEETING of the SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL held in Council Headquarters, Newtown St. Boswells on 2 March 2017 at 10.00 a.m. ------
Present:- Councillors G. Garvie (Convener), S. Aitchison, W. Archibald, M. Ballantyne, S. Bell, J. Brown, K. Cockburn, M. Cook , A. Cranston, V. Davidson, J. Fullarton, I. Gillespie, B. Herd, G. Logan, W. McAteer, S. Marshall, J. Mitchell, D. Moffat, S. Mountford, A. Nicol, D. Parker, D. Paterson, F. Renton, S. Scott, R. Smith, G. Turnbull, T. Weatherston. Apologies:- Councillors C. Bhatia, J. Campbell, G. Edgar, J. Greenwell, R. Stewart, J. Torrance, B. White. In Attendance:- Chief Executive, Depute Chief Executive (People), Depute Chief Executive (Place), Corporate Transformation and Services Director, Service Director Assets and Infrastructure, Service Director Regulatory Services, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Officer Roads, Clerk to the Council. ------
1. POLICE SCOTLAND The Convener welcomed Chief Superintendent Ivor Marshall to the meeting. Chief Superintendent Marshall was the commanding officer of J Division which included the Scottish Borders Council area and gave Members a presentation on current policing in the area and the vision for the service going forward. He thanked the Police, Fire & Rescue and Safer Communities Board of the Council for their support. Policing covered a wide area from international matters including terrorism to local rural issues. Chief Constable Gormley had set out a 10 year Strategy 2016-2026 which was divided into a series of 1, 3 and 5 year delivery plans and he urged Members to take part in the consultation on these plans. The key elements were prevention, protection, communities, cybercrime, growth of knowledge and innovation for the service of the future. A study of how police officers spent their time had revealed that only 20% of their time was dealing with crime and the remaining 80% dealing with other issues such as sudden deaths, missing people etc. which highlighted the importance of a partnership approach. A sustainable operating model which focussed on outcomes was needed. Chief Superintendent Marshall commented on recent improvements at the Bilston Glen Centre and outlined recent activities in the force area. He then answered Members’ questions on matters including the provision of statistics, future use of Hawick Police Station and the police estate review, responses following the reporting of crime, confusion over which contact number to use, and policing of social media. The Convener thanked Chief Superintendent Marshall for his presentation.
DECISION NOTED the presentation.
2. MINUTES The Minutes of the Meetings held on 22 December 2016 and 9 February 2017 were considered.
DECISION AGREED that the Minutes be approved and signed by the Convener.
3. COMMITTEE MINUTES The Minutes of the following Committees had been circulated:-
Peebles Common Good Fund 23 November 2016 Tweeddale Area Forum 23 November 2016 Page 1 Berwickshire Area Forum 1 December 2016 Cheviot Area Forum 7 December 2016 Pension Fund Committee 8 December 2016 Pension Board 8 December 2016 Galashiels Common Good Fund 8 December 2016 Eildon Area Forum 8 December 2016 Teviot & Liddesdale Area Forum 13 December 2016 Lauder Common Good Fund 14 December 2016 Civic Government Licensing 16 December 2016 Local Review Body 19 December 2016 Planning & Building Standards 9 January 2017 Executive 17 January 2017 Teviot & Liddesdale Area Forum 17 January 2017 Civic Government Licensing 20 January 2017 Local Review Body 23 January 2017 Scrutiny 26 January 2017 Innerleithen Common Good Fund 26 January 2017 Executive 31 January 2017 Jedburgh Common Good Fund 1 February 2017 Kelso Common Good Fund 1 February 2017
DECISION APPROVED the Minutes listed above subject to paragraph 3 below.
4. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Tweeddale Area Forum With reference to paragraph 3 of the Minute of the Tweeddale Area Forum held on 23 November 2016, Council was asked to approve a number of recommendations relating to the A72 Action Sub-Committee and its continuation after the Council elections in May.
DECISION AGREED:-
(a) the Tweeddale Area Forum, or its successors, create an action group, in the next Council term, comprising of Councillors (both local and with relevant portfolios), Community Councillors, and other interested parties such as local parliamentarians, and the group should also take into account how future works on the A72 could benefit business development in Tweeddale, such as cycling tourism;
(b) the replacement of the existing anti-skid surfacing at the approaches to The Nest Roundabout be considered in future Road Maintenance Programmes;
(c) Officers be asked to investigate the provision for a crossing for cyclists on the Innerleithen Road, Peebles beyond the entrance to the Peebles Hotel Hydro to facilitate a connection with the multi-use path where it came out at Whitestone Park and that meantime, Community Councillor Tatler would liaise with the developers of the Hydro Gardens houses to ascertain if access could be provided through the estate;
(d) Officers explore the possible provision of a traffic island in the middle of the road where the 30 mph limit was at the west end of Clovenfords to stop vehicles speeding before leaving the village;
(e) Officers recognise the strategic importance of the A72 in light of the volume of traffic it carried when determining Council’s roads budgets;
Page 2 (f) the Tweeddale Area Forum, or its successors, request Officers to provide a further report on the condition of the A72 to be brought to the Area Forum, or its successors, at a future date (to be agreed), and that the report requested indicate whether the spend, or repairs, to the road infrastructure were comparable in any of the following 3 sections of the A72; West of Peebles, East of Peebles, and in Peebles;
(g) Officers prepare an audit or review of the signage and street furniture on the A72;
(h) the A72 Woodend – Tighnuilt section be given consideration in the Council’s Capital Plan, as budgets allow;
(i) the Area Forum, or its successors, consider and act on any information that may come from any forthcoming, or future investigations into vehicle collisions and vehicle related accidents on the A72; and
(j) Officers investigate the possibility of reducing the speed limit at the junction of the A72 and the A701.
4.2 Jedburgh Common Good Fund Sub-Committee With reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of the Jedburgh Common Good Fund Sub- Committee, the Council was asked to approve an award of grant to Jedforest RFC towards the refurbishment of their clubrooms.
DECISION AGREED that Jedburgh Common Good Sub-Committee award a grant of £50,000 to the Jedforest RFC towards the major refurbishment of the Clubrooms commencing May 2017.
5. OPEN QUESTIONS The questions submitted by Councillors Logan, Smith, Marshall, Mountford and Bell were answered.
DECISION NOTED the replies as detailed in Appendix I to this Minute.
6. HAWICK FLOOD PROTECTION SCHEME There had been circulated copies of a report by the Depute Chief Executive Place providing an update on the development of the Preferred Scheme through the Outline Design process and seeking authority for the Scheme’s Project Board to commence taking this Preferred Scheme through the statutory process under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and the Flood Risk Management (Flood Protection Schemes, Potentially Vulnerable Areas and Local Plan Districts) (Scotland) Regulations 2010; as the Scheme required an Environmental Impact Assessment. The report explained that in 2013 the project team had obtained Council approval to develop the Preferred Scheme through the Outline Design stage and the publication of the Scheme through the statutory process. The key principles of the Preferred Hawick Flood Protection Scheme (the Scheme) had been maintained through the development of the Outline Design Process. The project team had continued to deliver the output in accordance with the programme reported in September 2016 to maintain the target of publishing the Scheme in April 2017. It was important to publish the Scheme in April 2017 so that the project team had sufficient time to resolve objection(s), to allow the Council to ‘Confirm’ the Scheme in September 2017. The publication of the Scheme was the most important stage of the project for determining the programme and successfully obtaining funding as it opened up the Final Outline Design to public query and challenge that could result in an objection. If the programmed objection resolution process went beyond the estimated three months it put at risk delivering flood protection by June 2021 and the funding of the Scheme. The project team had mitigated this as far as possible with proactive Page 3 engagement with statutory consultees and the community over the past two years to overcome key concerns. The project team had undertaken a robust land referencing process to identify all land owners, land occupiers, businesses, individuals, agencies and community groups that needed to be legally notified of the Scheme publication. The project team were currently undertaking a due diligence review of this information and using all reasonable endeavours to fill any gaps in owner or occupier details. This process would be complete prior to publication. Members welcomed the report, thanked officers for their work to date and expressed the hope that any objections could be resolved..
DECISION AGREED to:-
(a) note the progress made on the project since the update in September 2016;
(b) approve the Final Outline Design for the Hawick Flood Protection Scheme that has been developed over the last two years;
(c) authorise the project team to commence the Statutory Approvals processes identified in the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and the 2010 Regulations; and
(d) instruct the project team to present the Hawick Flood Protection Scheme to Council for a decision (as detailed in the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and the 2010 Regulations) as soon as possible after the end of the formal 28 days objection period.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillors Davidson, Fullarton, Herd and Mountford declared an interest in the following item of business in terms of Section 5 of the Councillors Code of Conduct and left the Chamber during the discussion.
7. COUNCIL & TENANT REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF SCOTTISH BORDERS HOUSING ASSOCIATION There had been circulated copies of a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services on proposed changes to the governance structure of Scottish Borders Housing Association (SBHA), including the removal of guaranteed places for Local Authority Members nominations and the reserved vacancies for tenant Shareholding Members of SBHA on the Board of Management. The report explained that SBHA had carried out a review to strengthen and future-proof their governance structure. The result of this review included a proposal to move away from a constituency model to a skills-based Board of Management. Community and tenant involvement would be a key part of the new skills-based Board, and Councillors and tenants would be encouraged to apply for Board Membership through the new skills-based process. The permission of the Council for this change was required as the Stock Transfer Agreement between Scottish Borders Council and SBHA stated at Schedule 2, Part A, paragraph 6.1 that: ‘The Association shall - not change the Rules of the Association so as to reduce the level of Local Authority or tenant representation or the ability of tenants to participate in the running of the Association (including, without limitation, the ability of tenants to participate in direct elections for the appointment of tenant Board or Committee Members) without the Council’s prior written consent.’ The Leader commented on the changes to the operation of SBHA since the stock transfer and commended this change which would still allow Councillors to apply if they wished.
DECISION AGREED to approve the changes to SBHA’s Rules to future-proof and strengthen their governance structure by moving to a skills-based Board.
Page 4 MEMBER Councillor Fullarton left the meeting.
8. TRIMONTIUM TRUST FUNDING There had been circulated copies of a report by the Depute Chief Executive People on proposals developed by the Trimontium Trust to refurbish and extend their existing museum in the Ormiston Institute, Melrose and seeking approval for a £60,000 capital grant from the Emergency and Unplanned Fund and for circa £63,000 of in-kind support. The report explained that the Trimontium Trust had approached the Council for assistance to deliver a c£1.9m project to expand and improve the offer which their Trimontium Museum located in the Ormiston Institute, Melrose currently provided. The main capital project had been costed at approximately £1.2m with the balance in display and interpretation and an ambitious activity plan. The Trimontium Trust previously submitted a Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) bid in autumn 2016 but this was unsuccessful. HLF subsequently met with the Trust and provided feedback on the initial submission. HLF indicated that for a project of this scale, and one involving a Council-administered building, they would have expected a Council contribution. HLF had also encouraged the Trust to resubmit a revised bid. The Trust was working to address the advice received from HLF and now intended to submit a new Stage 1 HLF application in early March 2017. The Trust was working with many partners, specifically Live Borders and SBC Education, to develop their submission as part of a wider scheme to develop its community outreach and grow the museum’s influence beyond that achieved to date in its 25 year history. The Trust was looking for SBC to provide support in the region of 10% of the capital cost of £1.2m. It was proposed that SBC offer £63,000 of benefit in-kind, in the form of officer time, and provide a £60,000 capital contribution from the Emergency and Unplanned Fund. The benefit in-kind comprised approximately £56,000 of architectural services and £7,000 of Clerk of Works services which it was planned would be delivered internally by SBC. The total contribution therefore would be £123,000. An amended wording for recommendation was tabled at the meeting. Members welcomed the proposals.
DECISION AGREED:-
(a) to note the proposals that had been developed by the Trimontium Trust to expand and improve the offer which their Trimontium Museum in the Ormiston Institute, Melrose currently provided;
(b) to provide the project with a £60,000 capital contribution from the Emergency and Unplanned Fund and provide £63,000 of in kind support; and
(c) on the assumption that the stage 1 HLF application was successful, to instruct the Depute Chief Executive People to bring a progress report back to the Executive before the Trimontium Trust submitted a Stage 2 HLF application. SBC Support for the Stage 2 application would be subject to all identified funding being agreed in advance.
9. MOTION BY COUNCILLOR RENTON 9.1 In advance of considering this item the Convener cautioned Members that they must not discuss the tragic events which occurred at the 2014 Rally nor make any statement which could be considered to influence the conduct of resolution of the Inquiry in any way.
9.2 Councillor Renton, seconded by Councillor Aitchison, moved the Motion, as detailed on the agenda, in the following terms:-
“This Council notes the commencement of the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the tragic deaths which occurred at the 2014 Jim Clark Rally.
Page 5 After carefully considering the Findings of the Inquiry, and if those findings do not inhibit her from doing so, this Council asks that the Chief Executive seeks to work positively with all relevant parties to restore the Jim Clark Rally as quickly as possible.”
Councillor Renton spoke in support of her Motion which was unanimously supported.
DECISION AGREED to approve the Motion as detailed above.
MEMBER Councillor Cockburn left the meeting.
10. PRIVATE BUSINESS DECISION AGREED under Section 50A(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the business detailed in Appendix II to this Minute on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1, 6, 8 and 9 of Part I of Schedule 7A to the Act.
SUMMARY OF PRIVATE BUSINESS
11. Minute The private section of the Council Minute of 22 December 2016 was approved.
12. Committee Minutes The private sections of the Committee Minutes as detailed in paragraph 3 of this Minute were approved.
13. Tweedside National Housing Trust 2011 Limited Liability Partnership Members approved a report by the Service Director Regulatory Services on the disposal of housing stock owned by the Tweedside National Housing Trust 2011 Limited Liability Partnership.
14. Urgent Business Under Section 50B(4)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Convener was of the opinion that the item dealt with in the following paragraph should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency, in view of the need to make an early decision.
15. Hawick Action Plan Members approved a report by the Corporate Transformation and Services Director on the submission of a formal proposal to the Scottish Government.
The meeting concluded at 2.25 p.m.
Page 6 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL 2 MARCH 2017 APPENDIX I
Question from Councillor Logan
To Executive Member for Culture, Sport, Youth and Communities There are clear concerns in both the USA and Holland about the nature of the product used for 3G pitches.
Do you agree that the Scottish Borders Council should adopt the precautionary principles adopted by the Dutch Government and the EU. This means that no more 3g pitches should be installed pending reviews made by the Dutch Government and the EU.
If you do not agree I believe that this Council should as a precautionary measure arrange for chemical tests to be carried out to identify carcinogens on the product as it is installed and a guarantee that similar tests should be carried out on all products which are used to repair the pitches which regularly show signs of wear and need upgrading or replacement.
Reply from Councillor Davidson We are aware of concerns and have been taking advice and following the progress of international studies carefully. Advice on this comes from the Scottish Government which itself receives specialist advice on environmental risks to health from Health Protection Scotland and Public Health England. The current advice is as follows:
A number of studies have shown that chemicals of potential concern are present in rubber-crumb products used in 3G artificial sports pitches. However, levels of exposure to these chemicals have been found to be very low.
Studies to investigate, firstly, whether these compounds are released from the material on ingestion, secondly, if biomarkers of exposure are higher in players using these pitches, or thirdly, whether extracts of the product are mutagenic within in-vitro tests, demonstrate no current health concerns related to these products.
Current estimates of cancer risk associated with worst case exposure scenarios, including to children, are below levels considered of a concern to human health. Therefore, based on both past and most recent research, artificial pitches are considered safe for use.
In terms of on-going studies:
The European Chemicals Agency, (ECA) are currently undertaking their own research on the safety of rubber crumb and we expect a draft report of their findings to be published soon. DEFRA, who have overall responsibility for the UK, are leading on this and are in contact with Sportscotland, the Scottish FA as well as governing bodies in England and Wales.
A similar study is being undertaken by the Federal Government in the USA but this is not due to be concluded until the middle of next year.
Regarding measures taken by Scottish Borders Council: The Council uses reputable contractors and suppliers for the construction of their artificial pitches and this is controlled via procurement and construction monitoring processes. The suppliers of the rubber crumb infill undertake testing to ensure it meets the legal requirements and details of this can be obtained where considered necessary.
The Council will continue to take advice from Sportscotland and other government agencies, and will review its position following completion of the ongoing EU and USA studies.
Page 7 Supplementary Following the removal of 30 such pitches in Holland, Councillor Logan asked that the Council continue to monitor the situation. Councillor Davidson confirmed that this would be done.
Question from Councillor Smith
To Executive Member for Economic Development Does the Member for Economic Development consider that the designation of a National Park covering a part of the Scottish Borders is required to stimulate the local economy and in particular the tourism sector?
Reply from Councillor Bell While designating a National Park in the Scottish Borders might help Economic Development through developing tourism in the area it is highly questionable whether this would be achieved solely by such a designation and without additional investment. It is currently unclear how this additional investment would be obtained.
It should also be noted that, contrary to the negative interpretation of the state of the Tourist sector which some National Park supporters have been propagating, there has been a clear growth in this sector such that it is now the fourth largest employment sector in the Borders. This has been achieved without the complexities of new governance arrangements, the imposition of new regulations that National Park would bring, and additional costs that will be associated with the establishment and operation of a National Park.
Whilst real benefits have been delivered in other National Parks, it is unclear whether these would necessarily be replicable in a Borders National Park. The current proposal is at a very early stage and it is not yet possible to confidently say what economic benefits might be achieved. There is not clarity on the potential boundary; on the scope and therefore the costs of establishing and running a National Park; on the essential nature and heritage conservation objectives; or on the public and particularly the agricultural sector’s support or concerns.
I understand that a feasibility study is being completed by the promoters. We await the findings of that study before we can consider these issues further and establish what a National Park might be able to contribute to growing our economy. Such a designation might help part of the Borders to thrive; but it would certainly not be an essential component of overall economic growth.
Supplementary Councillor Smith asked what the economic downside of a park could be. Councillor Bell advised that he had looked at the Cairngorms National Park’s 3 objectives of visitor experience, rural development, and conservation. It was important that the appropriate tourism structure was in place for a National Park. As regards rural development, the view that it would increase house values could have a negative impact on the availability of affordable housing. As regards conservation, he was unable to speculate on what those important objectives for the Park might be and looked forward to receiving the feasibility study on a National Park in the Borders.
Question from Councillor Marshall
To Executive Member for Environmental Services Can the Executive Member for Environmental Services explain what if any effective changes have been made to the dog fouling strategy specifically with regard to the role of the Dog Wardens given levels of complaint concerning what many consider to be very poor levels of performance.
Reply from Councillor Paterson Neighbourhood Services have confirmed that they have not received any complaints regarding the poor levels of performance of the Enforcement Officers.
Page 8 The Council agreed a pilot, for a period of a year, with a third party provider which will run until 31st May 2017. A full evaluation of the pilot, and the wider responsible dog ownership strategy, will be undertaken and reported to Council at a later date.
The work of the Enforcement Officers is targeted based on the intelligence held by the Council and the provider. Their work is overseen by one of the Neighbourhood Managers who is analysing incident reports on a weekly basis and ensuring that the resource is used to best effect.
Getting accurate and detailed information on offenders is key to enforcement activity and I would urge everyone to provide as much detail as possible when reporting offenders.
Supplementary Councillor Marshall asked how many fixed penalty tickets for dog fouling had been issued in Hawick. Councillor Paterson undertook to provide this information but highlighted that a large part of the strategy included the education of dog owners and the promotion of responsible dog ownership.
Question from Councillor Mountford
To Executive Member for Environmental Services How much has fly tipping cost Scottish Borders Council in each of the last 3 years including the disposal of the dumped waste?
Reply from Councillor Paterson Neighbourhood Operations deal with the removal of fly-tipping as part of their varied daily duties. Due to the generic and responsive nature of their work, costs relating to fly-tipping are not specifically calculated and recorded. I am therefore unable to provide this information.
I can however confirm the numbers of fly-tipping incidents dealt with in the last 3 years.
2014 (557) 2015 (640) 2016 to date (602).
These incidents cover a range of things such as single black bags through to white goods
Supplementary Councillor Mountford asked if the Council would consider introducing a zero tolerance policy which operated in other areas. Councillor Paterson undertook to raise this with officers.
Question from Councillor Bell
To the Executive Member for Social Work This Administration set an ambitious target to complete 100 new affordable homes per year. Given that the exciting and successful filling of the Innerleithen ‘gap site’ and associated developments, opened by you on Monday, have added a further 9 new affordable homes. What do you anticipate will be the performance against target over the 5 years of this Administration?
Reply from Councillor Renton Thank you for your question.
I was delighted to be invited to open the new development in Innerleithen this week which has not only provided 9 excellent new affordable homes but has also filled a gap site and removed an unsightly building from the middle of the village.
This is of course just the latest in a series of new affordable housing developments to be delivered by the Council and its partners.
Page 9 Members will be aware that this Administration set a target of delivering 110 affordable housing units per year. With little over a month to go until end of the financial year, I am pleased to note that over the period of the Local Housing Strategy 2012-17 we are on track to deliver an estimated 591 affordable homes , which means around 118 per year. This is quite some achievement, and exceeds the Administration targets.
Supplementary Councillor Bell noted that the next plan included 1192 affordable homes and asked if there were any specific concerns regarding what needed to be put in place to achieve this. Councillor Renton agreed it was an ambitious target but if land was available in the right areas, funding coming down from Scottish Government, and houses built in the areas of greatest need, then this target could be achieved.
Page 10 Agenda Item 7
Agenda Item 7 SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL – 30 MARCH 2017
STARRED ITEM FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 21 MARCH 2017
5. ANNUAL REPORT ON THE SOCIAL WORK STATUTORY COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES FROM 1 JANUARY 2016 TO 31 DECEMBER 2016 and NEW SOCIAL WORK COMPLAINTS HANDLING PROCESS There had been circulated copies of a joint report by the Chief Social Work Officer and Service Director Neighbourhood Services, providing information on the number and types of complaints received by Social Work from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016, summarising the changes arising from 113 complaints and improvement actions. The report was presented by the Service Director, Jenni Craig, who summarised the main points and answered questions. During 2016 there had been 113 complaints received which was an increase of 22.82% from the previous year. Of those received 36% were not upheld. The report detailed the nature of the complaints and improvements identified for 2017 arising from complaints-based intelligence. The report also outlined the new statutory social work complaints provisions introduced by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsmen (SPSO) and sought approval of the revised Social Work complaints handling procedure (SW CHP). Following a period of consultation the SPSO had published ‘The Social Work Model Complaints Handling Procedure’ together with associated guidance for implementation. This would provide a standard approach to handling customer complaints about Social Work services across Scotland. Adoption and implementation of the standardised SW Model CHP was required from 1 April 2017 and would coincide with the implementation of a new National Health Service Model CHP bringing both social work and National Health Service (NHS) services into line with the existing local authority standard CHP. A new SBC SW Model CHP was attached at Appendix 1 to the report. It followed in its entirety the SPSO SW Model CHP. The new CHP moved from a 3 or 4 stage process to a 2 stage process and removed the stage in the current complaints procedure for consideration by a Complaint Review Committee. In considering the report’s recommendations Ms Craig asked that recommendation (c) be removed.
DECISION
(a) NOTED the annual report information on Social Work Statutory Complaints procedures from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016.
(b) AGREED:-
(i) to approve the Social Work Model Complaint Handling Procedure (SW CHP), as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, for all complaints relating to Social Work services whether they were delivered through Scottish Borders Council, ALEOs or the Health and Social Care Partnership, from 1 April 2017; and
* (ii) to recommend that Council disband the Social Work Complaint Review Committee once the process for all social work care complaints raised before 1 April 2017 had been completed.
Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
“PLACES, PEOPLE AND PLANNING” A CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF THE SCOTTISH PLANNING SYSTEM
Report by Service Director Regulatory Services
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
30 March 2017
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks approval of the response prepared by the Chief Planning Officer on behalf of Scottish Borders Council in respect of the Scottish Government consultation “Places, People and Planning” that sets out the options for the future of the planning system in Scotland.
1.2 The consultation contains proposals to make significant changes to the existing planning system in Scotland. The key thrust of the changes is to have a planning system that helps growth to happen and unlocks the potential of our people and places. The proposals identify four key areas of change: Making plans for the future People make the system work Building more homes and delivering infrastructure Stronger leadership and smarter resourcing
1.3 The consultation seeks views on 20 proposals for improving the planning system set out within these four key areas. There is also a series of technical questions for each of these proposals. Appendix A sets out the response of the Chief Planning Officer to these proposals and questions.
1.4 The proposals seek to refocus the planning system on delivering outcomes, facilitating economic development and Placemaking, whilst enhancing community engagement and reducing and simplifying processes and procedures.
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 13 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 I recommend that the Council approves the consultation response set out in Appendix A as the Scottish Borders Council’s formal response to the Scottish Government consultation “Places, People and Planning”.
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 14 3 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Scottish Government announced its intention to review the planning system in its programme for government 2015/16. The review was undertaken by an independent review panel, chaired by Crawford Beveridge (Chair of Council of Economic Advisors), and also including Petra Biberbach (Planning Aid Scotland) and John Hamilton (Scottish Property Federation).
3.2 The Panel’s report “Empowering Planning to Deliver Great Places” was published in May 2016 and Scottish Ministers published their response to its content on 11 July. Ministers considered that the review provided an excellent opportunity to improve Scottish planning’s confidence, reputation and ability to deliver real and positive change on the ground. They strongly supported the six outcomes proposed by the review:
1. Strong and flexible development plans. 2. The delivery of more high quality homes. 3. An infrastructure first approach to planning and development. 4. Efficient and transparent development management. 5. Stronger leadership, smarter resourcing and sharing of skills. 6. Collaboration rather than conflict – inclusion and empowerment.
3.3 Scottish Ministers set out a number of immediate actions they would undertake to implement the recommendations, and identified a programme of work, including establishing working groups and commissioning research, that would lead to the publication of a consultation paper in early 2017.
3.4 This work has now culminated in the publication of the consultation “Places, People and Planning” which sets out the options for change. The deadline for responses to the consultation is 4 April 2017.
4 KEY PROPOSALS
4.1 The consultation document which is attached as Appendix B, sets out a range of options to change the planning system in four key areas. These are set out below along with the 20 key proposals:
Making Plans for the Future “We want Scotland’s planning system to lead and inspire change by making clear plans for the future.”
Scottish Government proposes:
1 Aligning community planning and spatial planning. This can be achieved by introducing a requirement for development plans to take account of wider community planning and can be supported through future guidance.
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 15 2 Regional partnership working. We believe that strategic development plans should be removed from the system so that strategic planners can support more proactive regional partnership working.
3 Improving national spatial planning and policy. The National Planning Framework (NPF) can be developed further to better reflect regional priorities. In addition, national planning policies can be used to make local development planning simpler and more consistent.
4 Stronger local development plans. We believe the plan period should be extended to 10 years, and that ‘main issues reports’ and supplementary guidance should be removed to make plans more accessible for people. A new ‘gatecheck’ would help to improve plan examinations by dealing with significant issues at an earlier stage.
5 Making plans that deliver. We can strengthen the commitment that comes from allocating development land in the plan, and improve the use of delivery programmes to help ensure that planned development happens on the ground.
People Make the System Work
“We want Scotland’s planning system to empower people to decide the future of their places.”
Scottish Government proposes:
6 Giving people an opportunity to plan their own place. Communities should be given a new right to come together and prepare local place plans. We believe these plans should form part of the statutory local development plan.
7 Getting more people involved in planning. A wider range of people should be encouraged and inspired to get involved in planning. In particular, we would like to introduce measures that enable children and young people to have a stronger voice in decisions about the future of their places.
8 Improving public trust. Pre-application consultation can be improved, and there should be greater community involvement where proposals are not supported in the development plan. We also propose to discourage repeat applications and improve planning enforcement.
9 Keeping decisions local – rights of appeal. We believe that more review decisions should be made by local authorities rather than centrally. We also want to ensure that the system is sufficiently flexible to reflect the distinctive challenges and opportunities in different parts of Scotland.
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 16 Building More Homes and Delivering Infrastructure
“We want Scotland’s planning system to help deliver more high quality homes and create better places where people can live healthy lives and developers are inspired to invest.”
Scottish Government proposes:
10 Being clear about how much housing land is required. Planning should take a more strategic view of the land required for housing development. Clearer national and regional aspirations for new homes are proposed to support this.
11 Closing the gap between planning consent and delivery of homes. We want planning authorities to take more steps to actively help deliver development. Land reform could help to achieve this.
12 Releasing more ‘development ready’ land. Plans should take a more Strategic and flexible approach to identifying land for housing. Consents could be put in place for zoned housing land through greater use of Simplified Planning Zones.
13 Embedding an infrastructure first approach. There is a need for better co-ordination of infrastructure planning at a national and regional level. This will require a stronger commitment to delivering development from all Infrastructure providers.
14 A more transparent approach to funding infrastructure. We believe that introducing powers for a new local levy to raise additional finance for infrastructure would be fairer and more effective. Improvements can also be made to Section 75 obligations.
15 Innovative infrastructure planning. Infrastructure planning needs to look ahead so that it can deliver low carbon solutions, new digital technologies and the facilities that communities need.
Stronger Leadership and Smarter Resourcing
“We want to reduce bureaucracy and improve resources so Scotland’s planning system can focus on creating great places.”
Scottish Government proposes:
16 Developing skills to deliver outcomes. We will work with the profession to improve and broaden skills.
17 Investing in a better service. There is a need to increase planning fees to ensure the planning service is better resourced.
18 A new approach to improving performance. We will continue work to strengthen the way in which performance is monitored, reported and improved.
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 17 19 Making better use of resources – efficient decision making. We will remove the need for planning consent from a wider range of developments. Targeted changes to development management will help to ensure decisions are made more quickly and more transparently.
20 Innovation, designing for the future and the digital transformation of the planning service. There are many opportunities to make planning work better through the use of information technology. The planning service should continue to pioneer the digital transformation of public services.
5 RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
5.1 The detailed response to the consultation questions is set out in Appendix A. In general, the proposed changes are welcomed. It is considered that, subject to further detailed consideration of a number of issues highlighted in our response, these changes should provide a leaner, more flexible and proactive planning system in Scotland that engages better with its communities and is more able to deliver good quality places.
5.2 It is pleasing to note that many of the options suggested in our earlier response to the consultation by the Independent Review Panel have been incorporated into the consultation proposals. There are tensions between the proposals to encourage localism and public engagement and the proposals that have a potentially centralising effect and it will not be until these are developed further that their implications for the Scottish Borders will be fully understood.
6 NEXT STEPS
6.1 Scottish Government aims to take forward a positive and ambitious programme of planning reform over the coming months. Some of the proposals for change will be achieved through a Planning Bill and related secondary legislation, but there also is much that will be achieved ahead of these changes. It is anticipated that a Planning Bill will be presented for consideration by the Scottish Parliament by the end of 2017.
6.2 Scottish Government will be undertaking further research and testing of some of the proposals in collaboration with stakeholders. They will set up and develop the work of the digital task force and reconvene the six working groups who have helped develop this paper to explore the emerging proposals further. Officers from the planning service have been actively involved in the working groups and events organised by the Improvements Service, Heads of Planning Scotland and Scottish Government and would look to continue our active role in in the review.
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 18 7 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial There are no cost implications arising for the Council in responding to the consultation. However, the proposed changes to the Development Plan system and in particular the removal of the requirement to produce Strategic Development Plans, have the potential to deliver savings. In addition, proposals contained in this consultation may result in increased planning fees being charged, along with the ability to charge for pre- application advice. This could go some way to addressing the budget pressures currently being experience by the planning service. The potential for higher fees will have to be balanced against the potential loss fees due to the increase in permitted development rights.
It is encouraging that Scottish Government looks to be moving to a position where, in time, full recovery of the costs for delivering planning services may be possible.
There is currently a separate consultation on increasing the maximum fee cap for major applications, which would generate substantial fees for windfarm applications in the Scottish Borders. A response has been submitted agreeing to the increase in fees suggested.
7.2 Risk and Mitigations The key risks are considered to be:
Risk of not responding to this consultation:
(i) Failure to respond to the consultation would limit the Council’s ability to influence the new planning system in Scotland and reflect and highlight the issues relevant to a rural planning authority.
(ii) Failure to respond to the consultation would limit the Council’s ability to secure an adequate increase in fees to address full recovery of costs for providing the planning services in the Scottish Borders.
Risk of responding to this consultation
There are no perceived risks related to the Council responding to this consultation.
7.3 Equalities An Equalities Impact Assessment and a Children's Rights and Wellbeing Assessment have been carried out on the consultation proposals by Scottish Government and it is anticipated that there are no adverse equality implications. There are key provisions within the consultation that will have a positive impact on equalities as they will improve and enhance community engagement, assist people planning their own place, get more people involved in planning (including difficult to reach groups and young people) and improving public trust in planning.
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 19 7.4 Acting Sustainably There are no significant adverse effects on the economy, community or Environment and there will be real potential for the more effective delivery of sustainable economic development.
In mid-2017, SG will publish a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report. Views will be invited at this stage, in line with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005.
7.5 Carbon Management
There are no significant adverse effects on carbon emissions arising from the proposals contained in this report. See 6.4 regarding SEA carried out. The proposals seek to ensure greater procedural efficiency and a move towards digital delivery of services, reducing reliance of paper/post etc.
7.6 Rural Proofing
This report does not relate to new or amended policy or strategy and as a result rural proofing is not an applicable consideration.
7.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation
There are no changes to be made to either the Scheme of Administration or the Scheme of Delegation as a result of the proposals in this report.
8 CONSULTATION
8.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Legal Officer, the Chief Officer Audit and Risk, the Chief Officer Human Resources and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and any comments received have been incorporated in the final report.
Approved by
Brian Frater Service Director Regulatory Services Signature ……………..…………..
Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Ian Aikman Chief Planning Officer
Background Papers:
Appendix A - CONSULTATION REPONSE Appendix B - “PLACES, PEOPLE AND PLANNING” - A CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF THE SCOTTISH PLANNING SYSTEM
Previous Minute Reference:
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 20 • Planning & Building Standards Committee minute 6th March 2017
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Jacqueline Whitelaw, Place, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, Tel 01835 825431, Fax 01835 825071, email [email protected]
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A
“PLACES, PEOPLE AND PLANNING” - A CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF THE SCOTTISH PLANNING SYSTEM CONSULTATION REPONSE BY SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
MAKING PLANS FOR THE FUTURE – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Key Question Scottish Borders Council Response Yes. A: Do agree that our proposed package of reforms will improve development planning? There is merit in the periodic re-examination of how the system operates; looking at what we do, to Please explain your answer. identify current weaknesses in the system and suggest possible amendments / improvements. It is pleasing to note that the consultation contains a number of the options identified by Scottish Borders Page 23 Page Council in our response to Independent Review Panel. Consequently, the review is welcome and the range of options it sets out have the potential to make a real difference.
Scottish Borders Council therefore looks favourably on the proposed changes to Development Planning and wish to engage constructively in the further development of these ideas. There are a number of issues identified which need to be addressed further, along with clarification on some points. These issues are identified in more detail in the responses below. Optional Technical Questions 1. Do you agree that local development plans Yes. should be required to take account of community planning? However, there needs to be a reciprocal obligation on Community Planning to take account of Spatial Planning. To be effective there must be a high degree of consistency of approach and commitment from practitioners in both fields to work in a joined up and holistic manner.
If implemented on this basis, there is real potential to improve Development Planning making Plans more responsive to community priorities and aspirations. There is the opportunity to take account of the views of a wide range of Community Planning stakeholders using their existing networks to facilitate dialogue and avoid repetition of effort. Saving us all from consultation fatigue.
Page | 1 However it is important that Community Planning Partners recognise the purpose, focus, legal and procedural framework, of the Development Planning process to maximise the value of their contributions. 2. Do you agree that strategic development plans Yes should be replaced by improved regional partnership working? The current Development Planning system has too many tiers in relation to a relatively small country such as Scotland and results in a large degree of overlap or duplication in some areas. Strategic Development Plans (SDP) have had a difficult gesticulation in terms of process and output and have not been as effective as they could have been in addressing strategic issues in all parts of Scotland. In Scottish Borders Council experience, they merely pass on high level requirement for LDPs to follow and often merely replicate Scottish Planning Policy. SDP’s have not been seen as providing significant added value to the Development Planning process. It is acknowledged however that other authorities may consider that they deliver greater value in other parts of the country. Page 24 Page We contend that there needs to be a regional dimension to strategic planning, to bridge the gap between the National Planning Framework and Local Development Plans. This could be achieved by bringing closer together national and regional levels of planning to provide a clearer focus on the delivery of infrastructure, and to set high level supply targets on matters such as housing land. This could be delivered as suggested by regional partnership working feeding into an enhanced National Planning Framework (NPF). Regional planning partnerships could be delivered through joint working between stakeholders under the auspices of an enhanced National Planning Framework (NPF) that sets out regional targets, not aspirations.
In principle, regional partnership working groups are a good idea. However, there is legitimate concern about how such partnerships would operate and how targets would be tailored to take account of regional differences. The wide range of interested parties likely to be involved in the partnerships, along with often conflicting wants and needs, mean that agreement on regional priorities may prove challenging and time consuming to deliver. This agreement may prove even more challenging if the requirement to work together at the regional level is not made a duty. The provision of the statutory powers alone will not deliver regional partnership working or regional planning in any meaningful way.
Page | 2 There are also questions about the governance and financing of such arrangements, how any potential democratic deficit would be addressed and the equity of influence afforded to rural authorities such as Scottish Borders Council. There is a need for clear unambiguous guidance on procedures and the roles and responsibility of component groups and this must be set out at the outset. Further information in respect of the role of the Planners currently working at regional scale who would become involved in partnership working would be helpful. 2(a) How can planning add greatest value at a There is clear role for planning & planners to lead regional working partnerships. They can help regional scale? facilitate and manage the partnerships to ensure that spatial planning is at the forefront of regional and national policy – linking regional strategy to NPF, Strategic Transport Projects, Economic Strategy, Transport Strategy, Infrastructure Investment Plan, etc. There is the opportunity to have better alignment between the regional strategy and development/investment priorities.
There is already a core staff within Strategic Development Plan Teams with key knowledge of strategic planning issues that can assist in development of regional strategies. There are already contacts within
Page 25 Page existing SDP teams with a range of stakeholders, including local planning authorities and private sector, and knowledge of projects within their regional context. They would be able to play a key role in the regional partnerships along with colleagues in Scottish Government, 2(b) Which activities should be carried out at the Agree with the terms set out in paragraph 1.13 of consultation. national and regional levels? The activities carried out at National level should be defined clearly in guidance and could include:
Defining housing targets at national and regional level Developing and producing regional strategies in NPF Producing and monitoring the NPF delivery Programme Setting out priorities for the Infrastructure Investment Programme
The activities carried out at regional level should be defined clearly in guidance and could include:
Defining partnership boundaries and identifying potential stakeholders Proving the evidence base for development of the regional strategy set out in the NPF and its delivery programme Assisting SG in defining housing targets and regional housing allocations Co-ordinating housing target delivery between authorities and monitor progress
Page | 3 Co-ordinating Infrastructure levy spend and project delivery Promote linkage with Regional Transport partnerships.
Paragraph 1.15 refers to regional transport partnerships. It is logical that there should be close working with regional transport partnership and that they should be an integral part of the regional partnership. A joint obligation to work together would assist in securing this arrangement. At this moment in time we do not feel that there is sufficient information to allow a decision to be made on whether Scottish Borders Council should be part of a SEStran “Model 3” Regional Transport Authority and whether such arrangements are necessary to address transport issues. 2(c) Should regional activities take the form of They should be duties not discretionary powers. duties or discretionary powers? As set out in the response to question 2 above, we are of the opinion that regional activities should be duties. If there is no obligation to carry out these activities in reality they will not be done, or they will be delayed, as other local priorities take precedence. Page 26 Page Given the likely differing opinions of interested groups there needs to be guidance on what weight should be given to all regional activities and also on the terms of engagement/reference of the various partners. It is worth noting that if the powers were discretionary, there is the potential for issues to become overcomplicated, too difficult, to be side lined, and for lengthy disputes to arise. This would not contribute to a more efficient planning system focussed on delivery and investment. 2(d) What is your view on the scale and There are benefits in providing flexibility to define the scale and geography of regional partnerships. It geography of regional partnerships? is important to understand the complexity and variance of geographies across Scotland, as well as the diverse economic and transport patterns. It is clear that a “one size fits all” approach will not work. The links to emerging arrangements for the Edinburgh City Deal and the Enterprise and Skills Review as it relates to Southern Scotland merit further consideration and could form the basis of the Southern Scotland regional partnership. It is important that the membership of regional partnership contains bodies and agencies that can help deliver the regional strategy and extends beyond planning.
As mentioned in the answer to 2(c) above, it is important that the terms of engagement/reference of the various partners are set out to ensure that all play an effective and meaningful role in the partnership. 2(e) What role and responsibilities should As stated in 2 and 2(d) above, it is essential to have the involvement of a range of partners in regional Scottish Government, agencies, partners and partnerships to ensure the regional strategy aligns with investment priorities and can be delivered.
Page | 4 stakeholders have within regional partnership However, their roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. working? Scottish Government clearly has an important role to play as the regional strategy will be translated into the National Planning Framework. SG can assist and support the regional working groups to provide a clear national perspective on priorities throughout Scotland and about where partnership working is required to deliver national objectives.
Regional planning staff, as well as providing the technical and administrative core of the partnership, must have a clear executive role in the management, operation and direction of the partnership and the development of the regional strategy.
Statutory agencies (of all sorts) must have a binding obligation to participate in the group and for them to take account of the regional strategy in their investment programmes.
Page 27 Page Other partners (private/commercial sector) should also be involved in the partnership to provide commercial sense check of options and proposals and information on their investment priorities.
3. Should the National Planning Framework There is some merit in the National Planning Framework and SPP being part of the development plan, (NPF), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) or both be along with Local Development Plans, as a suite of multi-level policy documents to guide development given more weight in decision making? and investment in Scotland. It is important that they are prepared in and that there is sufficient consultation and scrutiny of their content. Otherwise, this process this could be seen as centralising and top heavy approach to policy/strategy development.
It is critical that there is a specified role and involvement of the Local Authorities in the preparation of the NPF and SPP in respect of the identification of regional planning priorities and that this is clearly set out and given sufficient weight through the regional partnerships.
It is accepted that Local Development Plans should be streamlined and not be seen as an all- encompassing rule book. However, LDP’s must still be allowed to set out the policy position based on local context and circumstances. The revised NPF should concentrate on national/strategic matters and allow local development plans the scope for greater innovation and flexibility to deliver those objectives.
Page | 5 If it is decided not to proceed to make the NPF and SPP part of the development plan then it is accepted that they should be given greater weight in the decision making process. However, as stated already Local Planning Authorities must be involved and consulted on the content of these documents. 3(a) Do you agree with our proposals to update Yes. We agree with the provisions set out in paragraph 1.24. the way in which the National Planning Framework (NPF) is prepared? The proposals seem logical and it is essential that government policies and strategies are aligned. It is important that national and local government plus the regional partnerships and commercial interests see the NPF as a national corporate document and the key spatial driver for growth and development.
4. Do you agree with our proposals to simplify the Yes. The proposals set out in 1.29 are welcome (further specific comment is made on these proposals preparation of development plans? in the answers to questions 4 (a) – (d) below). Page 28 Page There is a keen need to reduce the bureaucracy associated with the production of Local Development Plans, along with a shortening in the time taken to produce them. We agree that there is merit in reducing the stages and processes required in producing a Local Development Plan.
It is accepted that with the removal of the need to produce a MIR or consultative draft plan (as per the pre 2006 planning system) there will understandably be a need and expectation to focus on more community engagement at the early stage of the process. Can we say this when we’re actually removing a lot of the beaurocratic elements of the process which will actually release resources?
Whilst not part of the proposals, it is suggested that to be effective and to provide opportunity for input by those potentially affected by Plan proposals neighbour notification should be focused on the early stage of plan development. 4(a) Should the plan review cycle be lengthened Yes. to 10 years? The proposal to have a 10 year vision for a locality in the LDP makes sense, providing certainty for communities and for those wishing to develop and invest. The change in emphasis from production of the document to delivery of outcomes is welcome. However, if these reduced production timescales are to be met then the process must be simple and straightforward. Whilst some of this change in
Page | 6 emphasis can be achieved by legislation there is a “mind set” or culture change that is required from all parties involved in the preparation of LDP’s to pursue production collaboration and avoid the protracted delays and arguments we have seen over issues such as housing land requirement. In the circumstances, training and clear guidance is essential to ensure that the new system delivers.
It is suggested that there needs to be annual monitoring regime for LDP’s, so that there is an understanding of how it is delivering in terms of the operation of policies and development on the ground. This will feed into an assessment of whether a plan should be updated or it is meeting identified triggers. Whilst there may be some nationally defined triggers, such as housing land requirements, it is suggested that most ‘triggers’ for an update of the plan would to be agreed at a local level.
Detailed guidance will be required on how to carry-out an update of the LDP within the 10 year cycle of the plan. Again, these need to be simple and proportionate to avoid unnecessary delays and a
Page 29 Page complicated procedural merry-go round. 4(b) Should there be scope to review the plan Yes. between review cycles? The ability to review the plan between cycles will ensure that the plan remains up to date, flexible and responsive to change.
As stated already in 4(a) above, detailed procedures setting out how this is done need to be set out clearly in guidance. Guidance is important to set the ground rules for making these changes. Clarification on what the potential ‘trigger’ points would be needs to be set out at national level and agreed at a local level. There would certainly need to be a trigger for housing land supply and a mechanism in place for the release/identification of any future land.
Guidance would be required on how to deal with changes that have a more fundamental impact on the key thrust or strategy of the plan. This may need a more comprehensive approach with a range of bodies at the strategic level to set the revised of the LDP, than the proposed simple and speedy process for most trigger updates. 4(c) Should we remove supplementary guidance? Yes.
We agree that supplementary guidance should no longer form part of the Development Plan.
Page | 7 Whilst statutory supplementary guidance seemed like a good idea, its production has proven problematic and they have not been as effective as hoped. We still believe that there is a role for Local Authorities to produce non-statutory planning guidance. It is clear that non-statutory planning guidance is useful and has some weight in the decision making process. To incorporate all relevant advice and guidance into the LDP would make it significantly lengthier, which is against the thrust of producing simpler and streamlined plans.
The key problem with producing SG’s which form part of the LDP is that they are by their nature short lived and require updating with the next LDP period, where applicable. Sometimes this update may not actually be needed so soon and this can lead to time consuming additional work and a duplication of effort. There are examples where Supplementary Guidance has been produced as part of the LDP, but not adopted until Year 2-3 of the plan. These SG’s have a very short life span, as part of the LDP. This was the case in the Scottish Borders for the production of our Housing SG, which was required to identify sites for a housing shortfall within the LDP.
Page 30 Page SG’s are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as the content of the LDP. In some cases, SG’s are being produced with detailed content and the allocation of housing sites, which are not subject to the same Examination process as the plan itself. It is not considered that this is the most effective way of dealing with a housing land shortfall for example. Furthermore, this does not solve an immediate housing shortfall issue, it is being solved in year 2-3 of the LDP. These issues would be better addressed and resolved earlier on in the planning process, to ensure that LDP’s are delivering an effective 5 year housing land supply from adoption. The gatecheck process would aid this and hopefully resolve the issues surrounding housing land supply targets/requirement and flag issues at an early stage. This would allow the content to form part of the LDP itself, rather than being dealt with through Supplementary Guidance, which is not in our view the best option.
We believe that there is merit in continuing to produce SPG’s albeit not as part of the LDP, which can be regularly updated (if LDP’s are to be a 10 year cycle) to provide guidance and further context to the policies contained within the LDP.
In terms of the proposed development of a “manual or set of advice”, we accept that this may address some broader subject areas and we would not discount the worth of their production out of hand, but much of the useful localised contextual information, advice and guidance may be better placed in non-
Page | 8 statutory guidance produced by Local Authorities.
5. Do you agree that local development plan Yes. examinations should be retained? On balance, and on a qualified basis, we agree that Examinations should be retained.
We would strongly recommend that they are limited in scope and do not relate to all unresolved matters, or to matters that have already been addressed in the early stage “gatecheck” process. This question is the key to reducing the timescales for the Local Development Plan being adopted. The examination should only deal with national or strategic matters of concern, leaving the Local Planning Authority to deal with local matters.
The introduction of an open-ended Examination process will not assist producing timely LDP’s and will undo the benefits of the increased engagement and consultation promoted at the early stage before
Page 31 Page the gatecheck. If the Examination were open-ended then what is the point of the gatecheck? We would be introducing an even more complicated process bookended by Examinations that may take even longer than the current process.
If operated on the more limited basis we recommend then there is a real hope that timescales can be improved. The proposed measures, for gatechecks and national housing targets, could ensure a speedier Examination process, which is not consumed by analysing housing numbers. Aspects such as housing supply targets could be front loaded in the planning system, with the gatecheck flagging up any issues and providing time for resolutions before the proposed plan stage. 5(a) Should an early gatecheck be added to the Yes. process? This would enable any issues to be identified at an earlier stage in the planning process, rather than waiting to be scrutinised as part of the Examination process. As stated in answering 5 above, this is on the basis that Examination themselves are limited in scope and we are not in actuality introducing a second Examination.
The gatecheck process would provide Local Authorities with an opportunity to address and resolve issues before the proposed plan stage, rather than ending up with recommendation(s) as part of the Examination process.
Page | 9 There is a need for guidance on the operation of the gatecheck and which topics it would deal with, along with who would be involved and their terms of reference - roles and responsibilities. 5(b) Who should be involved? We agree that they should be chaired by Reporters from the DPEA, as this will re-inforce the independent scrutiny of the process and ensure that it is professionally managed.
There is reference to the proposed role of Citizen’s Panels in the Gatecheck process (paragraph 1.35). Any such panels should be accountable to the people they represent. There is potential for these panels to conflict with the role of elected Council members.
It may be better to leave the Reporter to determine which parties can be involved in the gatecheck process on the basis of the matters to be considered and the evidence that they need to satisfy themselves that the plan is sound and credible. 5(c) What matters should the gatecheck look at? The key issues the gatecheck should consider relate to the sufficient evidence to convince that the LDP will comply with NPF and SPP and the validity of submission in terms of deliverability and practicality, Page 32 Page housing supply targets/requirements. There is greater scope to cover a wider range of topic raised through engagement process. These may vary for each LDP area. 5(d) What matters should be the final These are set out in the answer to question 5. The Examination should only relate to national or examination look at? strategic matters of concern, leaving the local planning authority to deal with local matters. 5(e) Could professional mediation support the There can often be very fixed positions taken by communities when they are faced with process of allocating land? accommodating further housing development. No amount of discussion or dialogue is going to change their views or remove their opposition to a development or for them to appreciate the benefits that might accrue to the area. It is a legitimate position for them to take if they feel that the impacts of the development are likely to be harmful.
There would be no harm in considering mediation and it could prove useful in enabling these groups and other parties to positively engage with the process and Local Authorities by providing a “neutral venue”, for those discussions to take place.
Clearly such mediators must have a neutral stance and understand the key issues to be identified and addressed. 6. Do you agree that an allocated site in a local Yes. development plan should not be afforded
Page | 10 planning permission in principle? This is qualified in that there are identified issues that would need to be addressed before it could be implemented.
In our response to the Independent Review Panel we suggested that the automatic grant of planning permission in principle should be introduced for allocated sites for the period of the Local Development Plan avoiding the need for unnecessary applications and that this should be aligned with a “use it or lose it” clause that rescinds permission if development has not commenced with the LDP period or the site is removed from the LDP. We have given the matter further thought and wonder now whether it should be formally classed as Planning Permission in Principle or perhaps, more suitably, as a form of “deemed consent”.
It is clear that in order to afford a site in the LDP the benefit of permission, of whatever description, there is the need to undertake a more in-depth site assessment prior to any site being allocated. There is a need to set out a set of national criteria for that assessment, so that this is carried out
Page 33 Page consistently across Scotland.
There is, of course, the consequence of the reduction in planning application fees received by the Council for all allocations, which would result in a reduction in planning income for the planning service. However, loss of fees could be offset by the increase in planning fees suggested in the review.
It would be necessary to define which housing allocations would be afforded the ‘planning permission in principle’ or “deemed consent”. This could be done on the basis of all sites allocated or sites above a certain threshold. There could be discretionary powers for Local Authorities to choose which sites. For rural Local Authorities, this could potentially be a large number of smaller sites.
Local Authorities will need to monitor how long an allocated housing site should be afforded planning permission in principle status. If plans are to be 10 year cycles, sites should be effective i.e. deliverable within a 5 year period. Therefore, there would need to be a mechanism to monitor the allocations and remove the PPP should sites not come forward with a MSC application within a certain time frame – otherwise developers are effectively land banking their sites with PPP indefinitely. This is an area that might be linked to a potential trigger point for a plan update and annual LDP monitoring reports.
There is positive benefit in adopting this approach in promoting the allocated housing allocations and
Page | 11 hopefully this would lead to development of the site within the plan period.
There would need to be provision for developer contributions to identified within the LDP and be dealt with at the detailed submission stage for such allocated site.
Given the number of infill opportunities within rural settlements and urban areas, there may be PPP applications for infill opportunities. Applications for redeveloping potential brownfield sites would be required to pay a planning fee and be subject to the planning application process but a greenfield site would not. This could lead to an inconsistency between processes for infill/brownfield opportunities and greenfield sites in the planning system. Understandably, we want to promote allocated sites, to ensure delivery within the plan period, we should equally be promoting the redevelopment of infill sites/brownfield sites as well. There is a need to ensure the promotion of sites within the LDP through potential PPP status that is not to the detriment of potential infill/brownfield opportunities.
There is a question about how major developments would be handled. If there is no requirement for a Page 34 Page PAC, would the Local Authority be required to do additional community engagement? This may well be addressed by the enhanced community engagement proposed through the requirements for pre- application consultation.
7. Do you agree that plans could be strengthened In general, we agree they would. by the following measures: 7(a) Setting out the information required to Yes. accompany proposed allocations It is important that guidance sets out a clear set of minimum standards for required information. Whilst it is accepted that the information required must be proportionate, it must also have sufficient detail to allow the Council to make an informed decision about the deliverability of the site.
The requirement for the proposer to submit a site assessment will be helpful but the objectivity of such assessments must be open to challenge. It would be surprising if all developers state that their sites are not effective within the plan period. However, we will still have the right to scrutinise these proposals so a clear list of required information would be helpful.
Page | 12 7(b) Requiring information on the feasibility of This information would be helpful but it is not without its practical difficulties. The assessment of the the site to be provided economic and market appraisal information (i.e. viability) would require a level of profession scrutiny that is outwith the normal skillset of local authority planners. This could lead to disputes over the assessment of this data that would slow down the application process. Many Local Authorities would be required to utilise the services of the District Valuer, which would incur additional costs and there may be capacity issues for the DV in dealing with an increased numbers of requests for guidance.
If the assessment were to be carried out by Local Authority planners then there would need to be a significant level of training provided, with investment from Local Authorities and Scottish Government (Improvement Service). It should be noted that regardless of the level of supporting information submitted and the site then being allocated it does not guarantee development. There are other external factors which can impact delivery and that are out with the Council’s control - in particular, lack of local market demand. 7(c) Increasing requirements for consultation for This is useful to state but perhaps merely reflects a lot of current practice. This may be helpful in
Page 35 Page applications relating to non-allocated sites reinforcing the predominance of the Development Plan that has been developed with community engagement and that any variance from that Plan must meet a very high bar to be acceptable. Such proposals on non-allocated sites must also still meet the general aspirations of the Plan and the key components of its spatial strategy. 7(d) Working with the key agencies so that where This is helpful to state but merely reflects current practice. Sites are only allocated if no they agree to a site being included in the plan, insurmountable issues are raised by consultees during LDP preparation. they do not object to the principle of an application We do not see a position where less consultation would needed for an application for an allocated site, as it is often at the detailed application stage where communities are most likely to be involved. Whilst you may accept the principle of a development, the precise proposals is where greater scrutiny will be required. 8. Do you agree that stronger delivery The change of wording from ‘action programme’ to ‘delivery programme’ is noted and will assist in programmes could be used to drive delivery of changing the culture associated with plan development and implementation. However, the delivery of development? development is not normally within the gift of local authorities but is developer led, and subject to demand and funding. It is also dependant on a range of stakeholders signing up to the development strategy and infrastructure investment being made to release development sites identified in the plan.
The ability of local authorities to be proactive in front funding the release of development sites and using CPO powers will be dependent on staff capacity and pressured Council budgets. This will also be
Page | 13 reliant of corporate and political drive to take a more proactive and interventionist role. 8(a) What should they include? Delivery programmes could include: Infrastructure investment plans Housing delivery programming Annual monitoring reviews Timeline for delivery of key plan stages Key projects information Identification of key partners and their role, in delivery of the plan Page 36 Page
Page | 14 PEOPLE MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Key Question Scottish Borders Council Response Yes. B: Do you agree that our proposed package of reforms will increase community involvement in We agree that the proposals will increase community involvement in the planning process, which is planning? Please explain your answer. healthy and to be encouraged. However, there are a number of issues raised by the proposals and our commentary on these is set out in more detail below. Optional Technical Questions 9. Should communities be given an opportunity Yes. to prepare their own local place plans? We are supportive of local communities being involved in the planning of their localities and producing plans for their place.
Page 37 Page The proposals for the linking community planning and spatial planning set out in the consultation already provide the basis for local place planning to be undertaken and to inform the Local Development Plan (see answer to question 1 above). We should not be introducing another layer of plan making that may be unnecessary and duplicating work already being undertaken.
Historically achieving a collective “whole” community view on development or planning proposals has been difficult. Inevitably, the same community bodies, groups or individuals attend our public meetings. Whilst we are keen to encourage their continued participation, their views may not always represent the wishes of the wider community.
The nature and content of these plans, if introduced, needs to be very clearly defined and their production should be clearly linked to the Community Planning process and inform rather than be part of the development plan. They should be aspirational but based in realism and practicality in terms of what is actually deliverable and be consistent with the development plan.
Our experience of local place plans, thus far, have been documents that are overly protectionist and on occasions their proposals are not practical or deliverable (e.g. new school, new sports pitches, new swimming pool, no housing, major changes to retail policy at odds with national requirements, differing opinions on conservation area policy, etc). Consequently, parameters for such plans must be
Page | 15 clear at the outset.
9(a) Should these plans inform, or be informed We are of the view that this is a two way process. The place plan must take account of an existing by, the development requirements specified in development plan but could inform an emerging plan or an update of an existing development plan. the statutory development plan? The statutory development plan must take precedence over a place plan. There would be concerns about place having an elevated status as they may not be deliverable and would not have been tested or scrutinised to the same extent as the development plan.
Timing of plan production is also important, and therefore place plans would have to work within a pre-arranged timetable in order to meet the targets set down for statutory development plans. Smaller communities may not be sufficiently resourced or equipped to achieve this; others may choose not to produce a plan at all, and therefore and regulation or guidance will need to allow flexibility to acknowledge this. 9(b) Does Figure 1 cover all of the relevant Yes, in broad terms but there are a number of outstanding questions and concerns. Page 38 Page considerations? 1. There is reference made to an application being made to the local authority for a community to undertake a place plan. On what basis would this application be judged and is there a means of refusal and appeal of any decision?
2. There is reference made to the need for local authorities to monitor Community Bodies. How would this be done?
3. There is potential conflict of interest arising from local authority oversight of what should be an independent body/ process.
4. There are real concerns about the resource capacity of local authorities to provide such oversight and support for communities.
5. Are we introducing another means of appeal where the decision on the incorporation the people plan into the development plan would be decided centrally and not locally. 10. Should local authorities be given a new duty Yes. to consult community councils on preparing the
Page | 16 statutory development plan? We agree with this provision.
We do this as a matter of course anyway. The linking of this with the community planning process (see answer to Q1 and Q9 above) and better engagement at the early stage in plan preparation is to be encouraged.
The role of the Community Council, in relation to this process, is to act as the voice of the community; to this end there should be some provision for consultation within their communities in order to ensure that this role is fully realised. 10(a) Should local authorities be required to Yes. involve communities in the preparation of the Development Plan Scheme? We do not have an objection to this proposal, as such, although development plan schemes are done to realistically set out how local authorities can deliver them. It is perhaps difficult to see, in practice, how local authorities could change timescales which are generally very tight. The preparation of the
Page 39 Page Development Plan Scheme may become more onerous than it needs to be. 11. How can we ensure more people are We are looking to use the Place Standard tool for our engagement with communities through the involved? community planning process and it will be an interesting to see if that tool allows greater involvement and better quality outputs from the consultation.
It will be interesting to see if its use encourages more people to become involved in community engagement, and will it actually assist in eliminating consultation fatigue for communities.
As noted above, Community Councils have a part to play in ensuring that they consult within their own communities as part of their own consultation role. 11(a) Should planning authorities be required to Yes. use methods to support children and young people in planning? We would of course be keen to learn from other authorities and agencies as to how that has been undertaken successfully.
Scottish Borders Council is part of the pilot project “Making Places - Bridging the gap” being run by Planning Aid Scotland” at Galashiels Academy along with representatives from Education Scotland, Scottish Government and Creative Scotland. The project aims to build ties between generations and organisations, equipping communities with the skills to survey, reflect and plan for their future and
Page | 17 involves year 3 and 6 students. This is a pilot scheme that could be adopted throughout Scotland and get placemaking on the national curriculum.
A key way to engage young people is through technology. An app is being developed for the Place Standard and others could follow: – 3D visualisations, placemaking gaming, which would tap into this age group more effectively than plans, reports etc. This is clearly a business opportunity for someone.
The proposals are silent on how would young people be involved in a vote on a People Plan? 12. Should requirements for pre-application Yes. consultation with communities be enhanced? Please explain your answer(s). At present the current arrangement add little, or no, value to the process and it is widely thought by communities that developers play lip service to the requirements and certainly very few meet the spirit of the requirements.
On the current basis, this is merely a 3 month prior notice of an application being submitted. It Page 40 Page provides for no worthwhile community feedback nor, in reality, do they influence the scope or form of a development when the application eventually comes in.
The consultation refers to two public meetings. Is this different to the “public event” required by the current regulations?
12(a) What would be the most effective means of There is merit in the suggestion about having two public meetings before the application is lodged. improving this part of the process? The first to present the proposals and have workshop sessions about the elements of the scheme and the second, to set out how the proposers have responded to the public feedback in a meaningful way. The second public meeting would necessarily have to be positioned toward the end of the process, with this timing and purpose set down in regulation.
It may be possible to fit this into the 12 week period, so long at the holding of the public meeting is the trigger for the process to start, leaving sufficient time for any changes to be incorporated and represented to the community prior to the application being lodged. In reality, this may need 4 months.
This should be done for all detailed or full major application whether they have been allocated or not,
Page | 18 as it is the detail of the scheme that will in most cases be of most concern to the community. It is a shortcoming of the current arrangements that, given the minimum information required for a PPP application to be valid, communities and residents are effectively being denied the opportunity to comment on the detail of a proposal through this process. All they may see is a red line around a site. If it is to be truly meaningful, pre-application consultation should be required at the detailed stage of a proposal.
We agree that training on community engagement should be provided to developers and training provided to communities to ensure that they are engaging constructively.
12(b) Are there procedural aspects relating to Clarification is required on how long a PAC remains effective. There is nothing at present which states, pre-application consultation (PAC) that should be how long applicants and developers should wait from undertaking PAC consultation to the submission clarified? of a planning application. There can often be considerable time and potential changes made that the community have not been consulted on prior to an application eventually being lodged. A deadline of
Page 41 Page 6 months would provide an incentive to getting an application lodged and as a result development happening on the ground. 12(c) Are the circumstances in which PAC is Yes. required still appropriate? If housing sites within the LDP are afforded PPP status then it is sensible that the PAC process would only be applicable for such sites at the detailed planning application stage. 12(d) Should the period from the serving of the Yes. Proposal of Application Notice for PAC to the submission of the application have a maximum As stated in Q12(b) above, a 6 month time limit may be appropriate. If there is no time limit this could time-limit? undermine the purpose of the PAC consultation and engagement with the community. 13. Do you agree that the provision for a second Yes. planning application to be made at no cost following a refusal should be removed? The planning authority has to process all applications and the time and costs associated with a revised application are no less than the original application. These are stand-alone applications considered on their own merits and should incur the necessary administrative fee. Our view is that a fee should also be applicable for revised applications following the grant of planning permission.
Developers and applicants are given time throughout the planning application process to amend proposals. In some instances, the incentive of a ‘free’ appeal and subsequent ‘free’ planning
Page | 19 applications does not encourage developers and applicants to find a best resolution through the original planning application. If a fee was charged for both the appeal and any subsequent planning application, this may encourage applicants and developers to reach a solution at an earlier stage. This would ultimately save resource and time and hopefully enable quicker resolution of planning applications.
We also agree that the fee for retrospective applications should be substantially increased for most local developments and major applications. However, in many cases retrospective householder development occurs due to ignorance of the regulations and we would not want to unduly penalise householders. However, for other forms of development where applicants and agents engage frequently with the planning system and should know better, a heavier penalty should be introduced. This would need to be supported by a strong enforcement position, in order to acknowledge that the increase in fee may itself be a disincentive to making an application, as noted below. 14. Should enforcement powers be strengthened Yes. by increasing penalties for non-compliance with Page 42 Page enforcement action? The inclusion of new powers to make the recovery of monies associated with enforcement direct action by means of charging orders is welcomed.
The possibility of substantially increasing the financial penalties for breaches of planning control is a positive step; however the penalties should be on a sliding scale with domestic breaches at the lower end. The upper end however they would need to be at a level that actually is a deterrent i.e. the costs of the penalty outweighs the benefit of breaching planning control. Whilst a single penalty is suitable for a householder breach, a developer should be faced with a recurring penalty to dissuade them from continuing with the works on a site.
In addition to creditable and realistic penalties, the existing mechanism of fixed penalty notices would need to be overhauled given that the process is cumbersome and ultimately there is no power to compel payment of the fixed penalty notice.
In England Planning Authorities are able to make use of the Proceeds of Crime legislation to recover sums of money from parties who have been convicted of a breach of planning control. The ability to deploy this in Scotland would help Councils who are faced with a major breach, say a land fill scenario where there are limited funds for direct action to deal with the situation on the ground. A successful
Page | 20 action under the POCA legislation could allow the monies recovered to be directed to the purification of the breach of planning control.
In terms of being able to bring forward a prosecution, the crime report which must be completed requires a date of birth for the accused party. The Planning Act does not contain provision to require this information. If this provision could be added to Section 125 and 272 of the Act this would assist greatly in relation to prosecutions.
It would help if the clock could be stopped once a Local Planning Authority registers a breach of planning control rather than when a Notice is served. The benefit would be that there would be no risk of informal negotiations, or retrospective applications, rendering the breach time barred.
There are occasions in which formal action is not in the public interest, however the breach still exists. If a notice could be served which was recorded against the titles to property, the onus would be on
Page 43 Page the property owner to regularise the matter at some time in the future rather than there being no resolution to the breach.
Under the current system an applicant who wishes to make material changes to an application would require to secure a new Planning Permission for a development, thus creating two separate and distinct permissions. Under the Building (Scotland) Act if a developer wishes to make changes to the original Building Warrant a process exist within the act to allow for an amendment to warrant to be made. The amendment is not in itself a new Building Warrant but merely a change to the original warrant. The advantage of this system is that you do not end up with multiple consents for the same site and the confusion of what is actually being developed. In addition, all the conditions on the original Planning Permission would still remain valid.
The powers contained within the 1997 Act in terms of entry warrant should be strengthened to allow for direct action whereby entry to a site / land or a building may be required on more than one day to allow the works to be undertaken. The provisions contained within the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 provide a suitable model for direct access. 15. Should current appeal and review Yes. arrangements be revised: We agree that there should be some refinement and changes to the way in which LRB’s operate.
Page | 21 15(a) for more decisions to be made by local The proposals set out in paragraph 2.42 appear to be sensible and will enable a greater number of review bodies? decisions to be made at the local level. There will be different experience of Local Review Bodies throughout Scotland and perhaps differing response to this question. However, they have generally operated well and have not been subject to the degree of legal challenge original envisaged.
The ability of other local consents such as listed building consents and adverts consents to be heard by the LRB, particularly when they are linked to an associated planning applications, makes sense. We have had such cases where the respective decision makers have come to different conclusions on the same case. There is a need to provide certainty for both developer and community.
The question of new evidence is one that is often taxed members and some clarity on this point would be helpful.
It does appear in the current format that the LRB tends to give more weight to appellants case and more referrals may lead to even more decisions being overturned. Page 44 Page 15(b) to introduce fees for appeals and reviews? Yes, we agree that a fee should be introduced to cover the administrative costs for the appeal and local reviews. This should not be disproportionate and for Local Reviews this could relate to the cost of the planning application as the application is being considered “de novo”. For appeals, which will relate to larger scale developments an upper threshold or cost cap could be agreed.
This may have a positive consequence in that it could encourage developers and applicants to find a resolution through the planning application process, rather than rely on an appeal decision. People may not want to lodge an appeal if they need to pay a fee, so this may encourage more people to engage and resolve issues throughout the planning application process.
The cost of public inquiries is becoming harder to justify, in terms of time, resourcing and cost. We are of the view that there are rarely issues that cannot be fully explored through written representations or, where that is not possible, through the long-established hearing process. Hearings are less adversarial and arguably more productive as a result. However, many developers, particularly for large-scale schemes, insist on pursuing the inquiry route of appeal. Acknowledging the increasing constraints on local authorities, we propose that, where that route is pursued, and a developer is unsuccessful, they should be made liable for meeting the Council’s costs. This would limit the number of inquiries and hopefully result in more appeals being addressed through the hearing system where
Page | 22 that is required. 15(c) for training of elected members involved in As an authority we do not allow members to sit on either Planning Committee or the Local Review a planning committee or local review body to be Body until they have gone through a training and induction. mandatory? There would be advantages in having a more formalised form of training and a test of competency would highlight the quasi-judicial process that members need to be aware of. There are additional administrative issues in operating a test and any associated appeal process. Would this be a national test or be locally defined? 15(d) Do you agree that Ministers, rather than There have been occasions where we do not agree with Reporters decisions, but that is not to say we reporters, should make decisions more often? would always agree with Minsters decisions or feel that they would be any more reflective of local circumstances. Increasing the number of decisions made locally through the modification to the Hierarchy of Development may be a better route.
There may be the opportunity to resolve a major LDP issues about DPEA decisions following
Page 45 Page Examinations. At present Local Authorities have limited powers to challenge recommendations (in the Borders recent examples about housing numbers and energy policy). There should be some opportunity for this to be addressed and this could be done via to request a referral to Ministers on DPEA decisions with which we disagree. 16. What changes to the planning system are N/A required to reflect the particular challenges and opportunities of island communities?
Page | 23 BUILDING MORE HOMES AND DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Key Question Scottish Borders Council Response The proposals have the potential to deliver the housing and infrastructure we need. However, there C: Will these proposals help to deliver more must be a degree of boldness in their implementation along with willingness of all parties to work homes and the infrastructure we need? Please together to delivery positive outcomes. This includes Scottish Government, local authorities, explain your answer. infrastructure providers, the development industry and communities.
Of the options set out in this consultation, this will be the most difficult to deliver, as housing and infrastructure cannot merely be delivered through regulatory change or issuing guidance. They can only be delivered through the co-operation of a wide range of stakeholders that all have different economic, environmental and regulatory drivers, as well as demands and pressures at a local, national or international level. The impact of the wider economic position and the attitude of financial institutions will also have a significant influence on delivering housing and infrastructure. Page 46 Page There needs to be an alignment of infrastructure investment, with Strategic Housing Investment programmes and housing land provision the National Transport Strategy (NTS) and Strategic Transport Project Review (STPR) along with the Economic Strategy.
The options require further clarification and guidance and our commentary on these issues is set out in more detail below: Optional Technical Questions 17. Do you agree with the proposed Housing is a national issue - we need to deliver the right number of houses, of the right quality, in the improvements to defining how much housing right locations throughout Scotland. Planning has a facilitative role in seeking to ensure that there is a land should be allocated in the development supply of land that can be developed and this process needs to be streamlined. plan? There is merit in a national housing target being established through the NPF. If this is merely a national aspiration as proposed, whilst this is helpful to a degree, it does not go far enough and is not a bold enough measure to drive housing delivery.
At present a significant amount of time, effort and money is expended by all parties arguing about housing land requirements. This is wasteful and unnecessary. The HNDA/HST numbers game currently applied to housing is meaningless, but is expensive and disruptive in that it diverts resources
Page | 24 from positive planning. A simplified HNDA tool with nationally agreed figures would address this but would need to be signed off by members of regional working partnerships to ensure that any such targets are reasonable and deliverable within the plan period, taking into consideration local geographies, economies and social aspects.
An estimate range of houses required over 10 years would be sensible and tie into the revised LDP timescale.
The NPF could translate the national target to a regional level in line with regional strategies (and associated infrastructure investment) through the regional working partnerships with allocations for each local planning authority. This would allow time and effort to be diverted to placemaking in association with setting out the detailed supply provisions, rather than arguing about numbers.
Local Development Plans would be required to meet the national/regional targets, and be monitored
Page 47 Page to ensure that prospective demand continues to be met through the plan period. We agree that there is a need to improve monitoring of housing land availability and deliverability and that an on-line register would be useful. It would also be helpful to update the guidance on housing land audits and effective land supplies. An agreed methodology for the audit and sign off by regional partnership would limit the potential for protracted debate.
It would be sensible to ensure that housing figures are confirmed as part of the gatecheck process for Local Development Plans, so that this removes a major impediment to plans being delivered timeously.
It is clear that greater detail is required on how the new system will operate. 18. Should there be a requirement to provide We agree that in the allocation process through the LDP it would be necessary for the developer to evidence on the viability of major housing provide more detailed information about whether a site is viable and deliverable. This information developments as part of information required to would also be needed to justify the continued allocation of a housing site in a subsequent review of validate a planning application? the plan, to show that there was a reasonable prospect of the development proceeding with the Local Plan timescale.
How this information relates to a planning application is perhaps more problematic. In most cases, vitality information is submitted with a planning application to off-set the development contributions
Page | 25 requirement of the proposals rather than it being a positive tool to ensure delivery. It is accepted that it may highlight where particular infrastructure issues or delivery blockages are and may give a greater understanding of the development finance and market dynamic of an area, but how that can be weighted and taken account of in a planning judgement is problematic at best. Planning authorities would also need to be equipped with the ability to assess viability reports.
It may be better to require this information for major housing applications where they do not accord with the Development Plan and there is a shortfall in effective housing land supply. This would ensure that if a justification is made to allow the site to proceed it can be proven that it will actually meet the shortfall it is purporting to address.
There are practical issues in terms of the validation rules and screening of this information and it would be necessary to set out very clear guidelines about when such information is required and what it should consist of. We already have lots of reports submitted to accompany planning applications, we do not want another one that adds little value to the process and opens up another area for Page 48 Page dispute and challenge. 19. Do you agree that planning can help to We agree that planning has an important role to play but would stress that numerous other diversify the ways we deliver homes? stakeholders have a greater influence in delivery of housing. One of the main hurdles in delivering housing is market demand, which planning authorities cannot directly influence, along with the lending practices of financial institutions and the land management approaches taken by developers and landowners.
A significant amount of joint working goes on in the Scottish Borders between planning and housing colleagues in the Council and local Registered Social Landlords. This co-ordinated approach has enabled the delivery of delivery of the SHIP programme whereby we are delivering a healthy affordable housing programme, which will accelerate in coming years. It has also provided new housing through the Bridge Homes initiative. This joint working model is one that other authorities could also adopt.
The Council is not a large land owner but is looking to market its surplus properties and land, under our current asset and schools review, for development or joint ventures with the private sector. We agree that there is a need for planning authorities to be more active in a delivery role to stimulate growth particularly in areas of market failure.
Page | 26 In terms of stimulating growth and activity we are proposing to front fund (through the City Deal) significant projects including housing and employment uses within the Borders Railway corridor at Tweedbank. There is clearly a role for planning to assist in the delivery of this project.
We agree that there might also be route whereby local planning authorities could be involved with joint venture projects with developers and communities to promote housing delivery. We would welcome a sharing of best practice on this process. 19(a) What practical tools can be used to achieve Identification of opportunities for release of Council land and buildings through asset review. this? The most obvious tool the planning authority can bring to the table is Compulsory Purchase powers to help assemble sites and buy property. The Scottish Land Fund and communities’ right to buy provisions. The use of Compulsory Sale Orders would be a useful tool. We would be interested to hear more about the land tax provisions to address issues of land -
Page 49 Page banking. Greater incentives (e.g. tax relief) for developing previously developed land. 20. What are your views on greater use of zoning We are not convinced that promoting the use of Simplified Planning Zones would dramatically to support housing delivery? increase or speed up housing delivery. They have not been used to any great extent since their inception and we are not aware that they have been used specifically for housing delivery. There must be fundamental reasons for this lack of interest by local authorities and the development industry. . Perhaps, as they have no direct investment budget associated with them they are not a particularly attractive option.
Beyond an element of “marketing value” we are unsure what, if any, value they would actually add. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the pilot schemes, as to their effectiveness and the implications for all parties’ - developers and local authorities. Will they speed up delivery or would these sites have already developed under the current or revised planning system? Will they actually improve the quality of the developments on the ground? It is very hard to envisage a SPZ that produces the type of place that Placemaking and Designing Streets wants to achieve, which is much more about breaking rules, and using differences and variations to achieve distinctiveness. Translating this into guidance in a SPZ would be challenging. It is contended that SPZs work better where achieving a sense of place is not one of the primary objectives.
Page | 27 It is worth noting that the majority of formally allocated housing sites in the LDP have gone through a screening process and will not generally have insurmountable issues to prevent their development. Their deliverability will also be tested through the provisions required on viability and deliverability proposed in this consultation. Housing sites will have also been subject to scrutiny through the housing land audit process. The introduction of a PPP for allocated sites would also deliver a deemed permission for the developer/landowner. This along with an up-to-date suite of policy guidance on placemaking and design, and planning briefs for allocated sites, would ensure a high standard of development on the ground. Again, we would question what the SPZ would be adding to that process?
There are a number of practical issues regarding their production and designation, along with the capacity and resources available in planning authorities to promote SPZ’s. There would need to be guidance on the scale of development that would be eligible for this approach, as it would not be sensible or desirable for all types or levels of development.
Page 50 Page For a rural area, such as the Borders, reliant on small and medium scale developers to deliver a significant proportion of our housing completions, an SPZ would not have any real impact on increasing their capacity to deliver housing. We have few larger allocations and doubt that the re- branding of them as SPZ’s would have an impact on the intrinsic reasons why they are not proceeding at this moment in time.
The production of SPZ’s would require a significant amount of preparatory work by the planning authority. The option of the developer funding a proportion of this work would be of assistance but may cause issues. Would communities trust SPZ supported by the developer? There is likely to be a loss in the planning fees from SPZ’s, particularly if these are focussed on the larger scale housing allocations where increased fees would be payable. Notwithstanding any developer assistance in their production, the local authority would still need to produce the SPZ and consider the detailed proposals to ascertain whether they comply with the SPZ.
There are real concerns about how developer contributions would be captured and controlled in SPZ’s? Consent is normally deferred until agreement is reached on the payment or payment made. How would this be handled in a SPZ? 20(a) How can the procedures for Simplified SPZ’s were introduced in the 1980 and had limited uptake. There is limited practical experience on
Page | 28 Planning Zones be improved to allow for their their operation and there is no up to date guidance. The practicalities of the implementation and wider use in Scotland? operation will most likely be fed back through the pilot programme that is proposed but it is difficult, at this stage, with the limited evidence available, to suggest how they could be improved.
If they are to be pursued, integrating them into the LDP process would be sensible. The options set out in Figure 2 would appear to form the basis of a way forward. 20(b) What needs to be done to help resource As stated in our answer to Q20 above, there may be a role for developers funding such schemes but them? that that is not without its issues in terms of impartiality and conflicts of interest. If the move to full recovery of costs for planning services outlined in this consultation is realised and we get realistic planning fees, this may allow local authorities to invest and increase their capacity to undertake SPZ’s. 21. Do you agree that rather than introducing a Yes. new infrastructure agency, improved national co- ordination of development and infrastructure Planning authorities currently have little control over major infrastructure provision. Trunk roads are delivery in the shorter term would be more Scottish Government, water and waste water are dealt with by a body responsible to the Government,
Page 51 Page effective? with only education infrastructure still dealt with by the local education authority. A stated already, each of the main infrastructure providers has their own economic, environmental and financial drivers influencing their investment decisions.
In most cases major infrastructure can be dealt with at the national/strategic level where the majority budget resource lies. The enhanced NPF could be backed by the infrastructure Investment Fund and an action programme directed by government. There is no real need for another national infrastructure agency to do this.
The key issue relates to providing key infrastructure at a regional level and how best this could be organised and co-ordinated and parties obliged to take account of the regional development strategy in their investment decisions. To embed an “infrastructure first” approach there is a requirement for infrastructure providers to be required to take account of the Development Plan in their delivery plans and for them to engage in the planning process at national, regional and local level.
In the short term, the establishment of the national infrastructure and development delivery group would help to improve co-ordination and provide a focus for action and agree that the actions set out in 3.33 are a good way forward. 22. Would the proposed arrangements for Yes.
Page | 29 regional partnership working support better infrastructure planning and delivery? There is potential for the new regional working partnerships, with a wider membership than just from planning and a link to NPF, to forge a role in the development of not just the regional spatial strategy but in the co-ordination of key infrastructure investment. The ability to use reliable and enhanced information through a regional audit of infrastructure capacity is sensible and would assist this process. We agree that it is important that there is a link with the Strategic Transport Project Review and other strategies, already referred to in our response to Q2, 2(a) – (e) above. 22(a) What actions or duties at this scale would Infrastructure capacity audit help? Details of all infrastructure programmes being required City deals Assessment of where investment will deliver most benefits 23. Should the ability to modify or discharge Yes. Section 75 planning obligations (Section 75A) be restricted? The ability to modify or discharge S75’s provides a high degree of uncertainty about current and
Page 52 Page future infrastructure investment for both public bodies and other stakeholders. There is clearly a concern that without the certainty of the section 75 agreement funding streams being available at the required stage of a development then such investment will not be made or the development will not proceed or, at the very least, it will be delayed.
We agree with the proposal set out in 3.40 so that obligations made toward infrastructure are respected and must be met.
In addition, we would be willing to participate in the improvement project targeting improving the timescale for concluding S75 agreements. 24. Do you agree that future legislation should Yes. include new powers for an infrastructure levy? If so, 24(a) at what scale should it be applied? As stated already, national projects will continue to be promoted and funded by Scottish Government. The levy need not apply to them.
We agree that there is a need to have a mechanism whereby regional scale infrastructure can be funded to allow the release of key development proposals set out in the NPF and the regional spatial strategies. This is beyond what can be delivered locally through section 75 agreements relating to
Page | 30 individual developments. In the circumstances, the levy should be collected from development proposals that have an impact or effect on regional infrastructure and be additional to the development contributions secured through S75 to address local capacity problems.
Defining the scale of development the levy should apply to is not without difficultly. It may be simpler to restrict the payment to applications of a major or national scale, or from developments on allocated sites that would cumulatively be of major/national scale (to avoid manipulation of applications to avoid payment). Alternatively, it may be possible to determine through infrastructure audit what infrastructure is required in each area and that all development within a specified growth area pays the levy toward providing this infrastructure. This would have the advantage of not placing a burden on other areas out with these identified areas. 24(b) to what type of development should it It is clear that it can be applied to the majority of application types and the majority will have apply? implications for different types of infrastructure. 24(c) who should be responsible for A means to collect monies for this regional infrastructure needs to be simple and straightforward.
Page 53 Page administering it? There is the potential for local authorities to provide this service on a similar basis to that operated in by Council in London administering the Community Infrastructure Levy. It would be costly and take time to set up an independent body to collect the monies. 24(d) what type of infrastructure should it be Education provision ( note the work already undertaken in this regard) used for? Access and transport improvements and new requirements Transport Water and drainage networks & capacity Broadband Flooding 24(e) If not, please explain why. Whilst we agree to the introduction of a levy, there are some concerns that this may be seen as a further impediment to development. In many areas development contributions are already high and are argued by developers that they prejudice the feasibility of proposals. 25. Do you agree that Section 3F of the Town and Yes. Remove the requirement. This can be covered through the Building Warrant process. We should Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as be looking to avoid unnecessary duplication and make sure that regulation is handled in the most introduced by Section 72 of the Climate Change appropriate place. (Scotland) Act 2009, should be removed?
Page | 31 STRONGER LEADERSHIP AND SMARTER RESOURCING – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Key Question Scottish Borders Council Response
D: Do you agree the measures set out here will improve the way that the planning service is Yes, detailed comments re set out below. resourced? Please explain your answer.
Optional Technical Questions 26. What measures can we take to improve Whilst the resourcing of individual local authority planning is central to the delivery of service leadership of the Scottish planning profession? improvement, there are common issues across all Councils, which could perhaps be addressed nationally, by, for example, providing opportunities for skills sharing and professional development. Continuing professional development is required by the professional body, but employers will need to create the capacity to allow that to happen and to assist by sharing skills and experience. The Improvement Service has been helpful in co-ordinating and facilitating workshops and this is a useful Page 54 Page foundation on which to build future training across the profession. 27. What are the priorities for developing skills in If planners are going to help facilitate the delivery of developments then necessary training is the planning profession? required. In light of many of the proposals set out in this consultation, a comprehensive understanding of development viability is likely to be a priority in the short to medium term.
Beyond this, design and placemaking are key areas which, while not lacking, would benefit from strengthening to provide planners with the confidence to fully address these issues across the entire planning process.
The drawing back of national agencies from providing specialist advice on areas such as natural and built environment has meant that these matters have had to be covered by local authority staff and it may be that training on specific technical matters would also be of benefit. 28. Are there ways in which we can support As noted above, there are already opportunities for skills sharing, including through the Improvement stronger multidisciplinary working between built Service. This could be achieved through informal means, for example, training by specialists from environment professions? those Councils who have them, to more formal arrangements for sharing resources between neighbouring authorities. 29. How can we better support planning It is right that authorities take ownership of their own performance and the advances made nationally authorities to improve their performance as well in speed of decision-making are recognition of the seriousness with which the issue is taken. We agree
Page | 32 as the performance of others involved in the with the assertion that the government’s position should be one of positive support rather than process? sanction. This requires an understanding of the reasons for poor performance rather than an analysis based solely on statistics. That may require a more “hands-on” assessment by the government than presently exists and a return to visits by government officers in order to fully understand these reasons. Adequate resourcing is at the heart of satisfactory performance and therefore cost-recovery through appropriate fees levels will be central to this. However, there are some other matters that would assist in this regard:
Much of the emphasis within the consultation is on how local authorities can improve performance. There also needs to be some monitoring of the development industry role in the application process; slow responses during the application process or, commonly, the legal agreement process, can be used to extend the lifetime of a permission, but it is the local authority that is penalised for poor performance. It is therefore pleasing to note the suggestion in 4.24 about the potential for strengthening grounds for refusing an application where insufficient information has been provided.
Page 55 Page This should be extended to allow authorities to address so-called “legacy cases”, so that the power to withdraw applications is formally extended to Councils, where there has been a significant period of inactivity by the developer; at present, a Council refusing such an application is penalised for the delay when reporting its figures, notwithstanding the recent ability to “stop the clock”. This would also provide greater certainty to communities about the status of a development.
The suggestion that fees should be lowered or sanctions put in place merely widens the gap between those authorities that are already performing well and those that are not, so that the result is counter- productive, when the real need is often service investment. 30. Do you agree that we should focus more on In principle, yes. It is still the case that Council performance is assessed on speed rather than quality of monitoring outcomes from planning (e.g. how outcome. places have changed)? 30(a) Do you have any ideas on how this could be The Planning Performance Framework has already assisted in the self-assessment of outcomes by achieved? Councils, although it is difficult to fully know how this is measured and compared nationally. The Quality in Planning Awards is helpful in this respect, although there are limitations, given the focus on nationally important schemes, when outcomes which have a considerable local impact may not justify national recognition. We already operate a biannual Design Awards scheme, which recognises quality in design, placemaking and conservation and is well-received by the development industry locally. Bringing together similar schemes on a national basis may assist in raising the profile of good design,
Page | 33 31. Do you have any comments on our early We have provided a view in relation to the current fee consultation. We support the proposals to proposals for restructuring of planning fees? increase fees in certain categories of development, but are of the view that only a fee structure that fully recovers the cost of delivering the service is appropriate or justified. The recent “Costing the Planning System” exercise demonstrated that the current arrangements still fall some way short of full cost recovery. An initial increase should not be dependent on performance in the first instance, until a level playing field of cost recovery is established. 32. What types of development would be suitable The General Permitted Development Order requires both consolidation and a complete overhaul to for extended permitted development rights? make it fit for purpose. This is also true of the advertisement regulations which are now more than thirty years old. A previous consultation on permitted development referred to the study undertaken by Heriot Watt University in 2007 in respect of the General Permitted Development Order which contained a series of recommendations that were never taken forward. We consider that many of the matters raised in that study are worthy of further investigation.
There are too many classes requiring revision to cover here, but the key issues are listed below: Page 56 Page Prior Notification
The Heriot Watt Review concluded that the prior notification process across various different classes should be abolished. We give this recommendation our qualified support.
The prior notification process appears to offer little added value and is confusing to customers, particularly given that proposals in the affected categories fall into a limbo which is neither permitted development nor an application process. The influence that the Council can have on a development and the amount of time available to reach a view on a proposal is too limited to enable any meaningful contribution to the process. The fact that a proposal cannot be refused also brings in to question the value of the system.
However, if the prior notification process is abolished, it will first be necessary to reconsider the thresholds which will determine where permission is required.
Similarly, it would also be appropriate to use the opportunity to revisit the requirement to notify Councils of proposed demolition which seems unnecessarily complex and adds little value.
Page | 34 Development by Local Authorities
Even acknowledging the relatively modest increase in the figure from £100,000 to £250,000 now in place (having regard to inflation since the original level was set), it remains our view that the determination of whether works should be permitted development on the basis of their cost is not an appropriate means of doing so; it would be clearer to specify the nature and extent of works, which would then be consistent with almost all other parts of the Order and with the wider principle of the planning system being concerned with land use rather than financial implications.
General Comments
The Heriot Watt study identified a need to make the GPDO “easier to understand, interpret and use”. It also suggested an easy-read or web-based “Plain English” version to accompany it (and the recent householder circular has been a welcome case in point). These are all ambitions which we would wish
Page 57 Page to endorse, not only to make it easier to use but also as a means of reducing the scope for dispute.
Additionally, an issue which extends across a range of Classes in the Order is the cross-referencing to other areas of legislation. The classes to relating to caravans are a case in point, referring as they do to a piece of legislation that is itself nearly 60 years old. It is considered that this should be avoided in order to improve the ease of use of the Order (without having to refer to other documents) but also to avoid the situation where the legislation referred to is itself out-of-date or updated and therefore is inconsistent with the aims of the Order. As such, it would be preferable to set out unambiguously those definitions or circumstances that are to be relied upon within the Order itself.
Permitted development rights to convert farm buildings to houses, as suggested, is not welcome – ecological, traffic, visual impacts etc are all issues that need properly addressed, as would the relationship of a house to an operating farm, which is already the source of repeated complaint to this Council.
It would be really very helpful if the government committed to consolidating the numerous pieces of legislation governing PD rights (non-domestic PD rights have been subject to so many amendments over the years), and notification/referral requirements, which would also have the benefit of making them user-friendly for the public.
Page | 35 33. What targeted improvements should be A clear and up-to-date legislative, regulatory and guidance framework is essential to the operation of made to further simplify and clarify development an effective system. management procedures? 33(a) Should we make provisions on the duration We take the view that sufficient flexibility already exists in the current arrangements. The rationale of of planning permission in principle more flexible reducing the time period from five years to three, brought in by the last review, was to stimulate by introducing powers to amend the duration development, and that principle is still sound. Three years should be sufficient to produce a detailed after permission has been granted? How can proposal and implement a scheme and, from a delivery perspective, will encourage that without existing provisions be simplified? providing scope to sit on permission for longer than is necessary. 33(b) Currently developers can apply for a new The provision, as noted, already exists, but there has been some difficulty in the legal position when planning permission with different conditions to different conditions have been agreed, given that the effect is that two permissions then exist. Clarity those attached to an existing permission for the on this situation would be welcome, which may include the scope for revocation of the original same development. Can these procedures be permission to avoid any uncertainty. improved? 33(c) What changes, if any, would you like to see As noted above, it is a shortcoming of the current arrangements that, given the minimum information to arrangements for public consultation of required for a PPP application to be valid, communities and residents are effectively being denied the Page 58 Page applications for approvals of detail required by a opportunity to comment on the detail of a proposal through this process: All they may see is a red line condition on a planning permission in principle? around a site. If it is to be truly meaningful, pre-application consultation should be required at the detailed stage of a proposal. The challenge is that the PPP is the permission, so consultation would need to occur twice in order that communities and residents do not miss the opportunity to comment upon the principle of development. 33(d) Do you have any views on the requirements It is difficult to identify any real value in this requirement, which can add a considerable administrative for pre-determination hearings and burden. Given that the Councillor expertise rests with the appropriate planning committee, who will determination of applications by full council? have received the necessary training on planning matters, there seems little to be gained in requiring further analysis by all Members of the Council. 34. What scope is there for digitally enabling the The planning process has been largely transformed in recent years, with the advent of e-planning and transformation of the planning service around online accessibility of all aspects of the service. Those changes have been almost universally the user need? welcomed and we have been complimented on the transparent approach we take to planning service provision. There is tremendous scope to continue this momentum across all areas of the service, but support may need to be given to service users in order to facilitate full digital transformation. For example, many of the Community Councils in the Borders have very limited resources and are ill- equipped to fully respond to electronic communication and may therefore require financial assistance to engage fully with the move toward full electronic delivery.
Page | 36 NEXT STEPS – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Optional Technical Questions Scottish Borders Council Reponses 35. Do you think any of the proposals set out in this consultation will have An Equalities Impact Assessment and a Children's Rights and Wellbeing an impact, positive or negative, on equalities as set out above? If so, what Assessment have been carried out on the consultation proposals by Scottish impact do you think that will be? Government and it is anticipated that there are no adverse equality implications. There are key provisions within the consultation that will have a positive impact on equalities as they will improve and enhance community engagement, assist people planning their own place, get more people involved in planning (including difficult to reach groups and young people) and improving public trust in planning. 36. What implications (including potential costs) will there be for business There are potentially additional costs through the introduction of higher and public sector delivery organisations from these proposals? planning fees and the infrastructure levy. However, these must be balanced
Page 59 Page against a more proactive, responsive planning service and the removal of unnecessary bureaucracy and the increase in permitted development rights. 37. Do you think any of these proposals will have an impact, positive or See answer to Q33 above. negative, on children’s rights? If so, what impact do you think that will be?
38. Do you have any early views on whether these proposals will generate In mid-2017, SG will publish a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) significant environmental effects? Please explain your answer. Environmental Report. Views will be invited at this stage, in line with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005.
We do not anticipate significant impacts on carbon emissions or environmental impacts arising from the proposals contained in this report. See 6.4 regarding SEA carried out. The proposals seek to ensure greater procedural efficiency and a move towards digital delivery of services, reducing reliance of paper/post etc.
Page | 37 This page is intentionally left blank Planning and Architecture Division The Scottish Government
Places, people and planning A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system
Page 61 Page 62 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 01
CONTENTS
Foreword 02
Our proposals for change 03
Key changes 04
01 Making plans for the future 06
02 People make the system work 16
03 Building more homes and delivering infrastructure 28
04 Stronger leadership and smarter resourcing 40
Next steps 48
Responding to this consultation 50
Page 63 02 Places, people and planning
FOREWORD Scotland needs a great planning system.
The places where we live, work and play can have a major impact on our health, wellbeing, sense of identity and prosperity. Planning can nurture our places, our environment and our communities and guide future change so that it benefits everyone. Planning can co-ordinate and support investment, ensure that future growth reflects the needs of communities and is sustainable. Planning has a key role to play in delivering Scotland’s Economic Strategy. The efficiency and reputation of the system has an important role to play in making Scotland an attractive place to invest.
We need to change the planning system so that it realises its full potential. Procedures and perceptions can be improved. Planning should not be bureaucratic and dull, but inspiring and influential. It should be dynamic, focused on outcomes, inherently efficient and effective. Our planning system should play a more active role in making development happen in the right places.
Our planning system has important strengths that have helped shape Scotland and there are examples of good practice around the country. However, we need to improve the performance of the system further so that it more effectively delivers for all of us. We need to improve the way the planning profession performs and is valued by others. This will need everyone’s support – we all have a contribution to make. We can build on previous reforms and much can be done within the existing planning system through culture change and improvements to existing practices. We can also make some targeted changes to our planning legislation.
The independent panel who reviewed the system heard from communities, developers, professional planners and a wide range of organisations with an interest in planning. The panel set out clear recommendations for change. Since the panel’s report was published in May 2016, the Scottish Government has discussed, with many different people, how we can make the system work better. The panel’s ideas, and the enthusiasm of people who are interested in planning, have helped to shape our proposals for change. I am very grateful to those who have contributed to the review of the planning system.
I hope our proposals inspire you to comment on the future of planning in Scotland, and I look forward to hearing your views and ideas.
Kevin Stewart MSP Minister for Local Government and Housing
Page 64 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 03
OUR PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE
Planning should be central to the delivery of great places and a force for positive change. Scotland’s economy needs a planning system which is open for business, innovative and internationally respected. Our people need a planning system that helps to improve their lives by making better places and supporting the delivery of good quality homes.
We recognise the unique contribution that the planning system can make to shaping the future of our places.
Scotland needs a planning system which helps growth to happen and unlocks the potential of our people and places. Our proposals have been developed in response to the independent review of the planning system which was published in May 2016. We believe that there should be four key areas of change:
• Making plans for the future. We want • Building more homes and delivering Scotland’s planning system to lead and inspire infrastructure. We want Scotland’s planning change by making clear plans for the future. system to help deliver more high quality homes To achieve this, we can simplify and strengthen and create better places where people can live development planning. healthy lives and developers are inspired to invest. To achieve this, planning can actively • People make the system work. We want enable and co-ordinate development. Scotland’s planning system to empower people to have more influence on the • Stronger leadership and smarter resourcing. future of their places. To achieve this, We want to reduce bureaucracy and improve we can improve the way we involve resources so Scotland’s planning system can people in the planning process. focus on creating great places. To achieve this, we can remove processes that do not add value, and strengthen leadership, resources and skills.
Responding to this consultation We would like to hear your views on 20 proposals for improving the planning system. To help you respond to this consultation, we have set out a key question for each of the four areas of proposed change. More detailed technical questions are also provided for those who wish to answer them.
Page 65 04 Places, people and planning
KEY CHANGES
Making Plans for the Future We want Scotland’s planning system to lead and inspire change by making clear plans for the future. We propose:
1____Aligning community planning and spatial 4____Stronger local development plans. We believe planning. This can be achieved by introducing the plan period should be extended to 10 years, a requirement for development plans to take and that ‘main issues reports’ and supplementary account of wider community planning and can guidance should be removed to make plans more be supported through future guidance. accessible for people. A new ‘gatecheck’ would help to improve plan examinations by dealing 2____Regional partnership working. We believe with significant issues at an earlier stage. that strategic development plans should be removed from the system so that strategic 5____Making plans that deliver. We can strengthen planners can support more proactive regional the commitment that comes from allocating partnership working. development land in the plan, and improve the use of delivery programmes to help ensure that 3____Improving national spatial planning and planned development happens on the ground. policy. The National Planning Framework (NPF) can be developed further to better reflect regional priorities. In addition, national planning policies can be used to make local development planning simpler and more consistent.
People Make the System Work We want Scotland’s planning system to empower people to decide the future of their places. We propose:
6____Giving people an opportunity to plan their 8____Improving public trust. Pre-application own place. Communities should be given a new consultation can be improved, and there should right to come together and prepare local place be greater community involvement where plans. We believe these plans should form part proposals are not supported in the development of the statutory local development plan. plan. We also propose to discourage repeat applications and improving planning enforcement. 7____Getting more people involved in planning. A wider range of people should be encouraged 9____Keeping decisions local – rights of appeal. and inspired to get involved in planning. In We believe that more review decisions should particular, we would like to introduce measures be made by local authorities rather than centrally. that enable children and young people to have We also want to ensure that the system is a stronger voice in decisions about the future sufficiently flexible to reflect the distinctive of their places. challenges and opportunities in different parts of Scotland.
Page 66 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 05
Building More Homes and Delivering Infrastructure We want Scotland’s planning system to help deliver more high quality homes and create better places where people can live healthy lives and developers are inspired to invest. We propose:
10____Being clear about how much housing 13____Embedding an infrastructure land is required. Planning should take a more first approach. There is a need for better strategic view of the land required for housing co-ordination of infrastructure planning at development. Clearer national and regional a national and regional level. This will require aspirations for new homes are proposed to a stronger commitment to delivering support this. development from all infrastructure providers.
11____Closing the gap between planning consent 14____A more transparent approach and delivery of homes. We want planning to funding infrastructure. We believe that authorities to take more steps to actively help introducing powers for a new local levy to raise deliver development. Land reform could help additional finance for infrastructure would be to achieve this. fairer and more effective. Improvements can also be made to Section 75 obligations. 12____Releasing more ‘development ready’ land. Plans should take a more strategic and 15____Innovative infrastructure planning. flexible approach to identifying land for housing. Infrastructure planning needs to look ahead Consents could be put in place for zoned housing so that it can deliver low carbon solutions, land through greater use of Simplified Planning new digital technologies and the facilities Zones. that communities need.
Stronger Leadership and Smarter Resourcing We want to reduce bureaucracy and improve resources so Scotland’s planning system can focus on creating great places. We propose:
16____Developing skills to deliver outcomes. 19____Making better use of resources – efficient We will work with the profession to improve decision making. We will remove the need and broaden skills. for planning consent from a wider range of developments. Targeted changes to development 17____Investing in a better service. There management will help to ensure decisions are is a need to increase planning fees to ensure made more quickly and more transparently. the planning service is better resourced. 20____Innovation, designing for the future 18____A new approach to improving and the digital transformation of the planning performance. We will continue work service. There are many opportunities to make to strengthen the way in which performance planning work better through the use is monitored, reported and improved. of information technology. The planning service should continue to pioneer the digital transformation of public services.
Page 67 06 Places, people and planning
MAKING PLANS FOR THE 01 FUTURE
We want Scotland’s planning system to lead and inspire change by making clear plans for the future.
Proposal 1 Aligning community planning and spatial planning
Proposal 2 Regional partnership working
Proposal 3 Improving national spatial planning and policy
Proposal 4 Stronger local development plans
Proposal 5 Making plans that deliver
Page 68 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 07
1.1____Development plans should provide a clear Proposal 1: Aligning community planning vision of how a place can grow and flourish. They and spatial planning should be of interest to everyone and inspire the 1.5____The independent panel found strong support confidence of communities and investors alike. for a plan-led system. We want to see plans that Change is needed to make that happen and ensure allow planners to lead and innovate, delivering plans better reflect the needs and expectations of priorities that have been agreed through an open society now, and in the future. and evidence-led process. 1.2____Plans should show where development will 1.6____Given the range of interests involved in happen, and how our places may change over time. planning, there should be an open and inclusive They should help us to design and deliver places approach to understanding issues, considering where people can lead healthier lives, move around options, defining priorities and agreeing proposals. easily and have access to the homes, services, facilities, People are at the heart of the system and our education and employment they need. They should proposals seek to build more effective opportunities set out a vision for places which are low carbon and for people to influence their places. A much wider resilient to the future impacts of climate change. range of stakeholders, including all relevant local Our planning system evolved to provide healthier authority services, communities and developers, places for people. We need to make sure that purpose should share ownership and responsibility for continues to guide the plans we prepare today. preparing, promoting and delivering development plans. One of the keys to this is making sure that local 1.3____At present development plans are often complex, authorities recognise the value of the development focused on technical written policies and restricted plan in realising their corporate objectives. by procedures, rather than being inspirational and creating confidence. It can be difficult for people 1.7____We propose introducing a statutory link to understand what change is proposed, why it is between the development plan and community needed, and where, how and when it will happen. planning. This link could be achieved by ensuring Developers and investors also need to have that development plans take account of the confidence in a plan. While there are examples of work of Community Planning Partnerships. good practice around the country, there is also often We will also support this as we bring forward frustration with the process required to prepare them. guidance on both community planning and spatial At present, many plans are considered to be out of date planning. Co-ordinated working and including by the time they are adopted – we need plans that can planners as key community planning partners keep pace with the way that society works today. will be essential. 1.4____Our proposals aim to simplify the existing system of development plans to make sure that planning authorities, and those they work with, focus on delivering outcomes rather than following lengthy and complicated procedures.
Aligning Community Planning and Spatial Planning – East Ayrshire The East Ayrshire Community Plan 2015-2030 sets out aspirational outcomes for East Ayrshire in the coming years. There are three shared priority areas, led by different community planning partners: Economy and Skills (East Ayrshire Council); Safer Communities (Police Scotland); and Wellbeing (the Health and Social Care Partnership). The East Ayrshire local development plan reaffirms the shared vision – in particular, the drive to promote the economy and skills is fully embedded across all aspects of the plan. The plan was used to explore land use issues including strategic locations for development, infrastructure and town centres. Key to the success of this alignment were partnership working, a shared focus on outcomes, governance and dynamic leadership. Page 69 08 Places, people and planning
Proposal 2: Regional partnership working Regional working 1.8____The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 reflected 1.13____We propose to replace these plans with new a two-tiered system of development plans, with duties or powers for local authorities to work together strategic development plans covering our largest city on defining regional priorities. Views on what needs to regions (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Perth and Dundee, and be done at this scale are invited, but we suggest that Aberdeen) and local development plans for each local the following actions would be beneficial: authority and the two national parks. • Helping to develop a strategy and delivery 1.9____At present, strategic development planning programme to be adopted as part of the National authorities are tasked with preparing a plan which is Planning Framework (NPF). We would want to see approved by Scottish Ministers after a comprehensive regional partnerships working with the Scottish examination process. The procedures for preparing Government, agencies and local authorities to make strategic development plans mean that there is little sure there is evidence to support the National Planning time to actively work on delivering them. Strategic Framework (NPF) and then to implement their regional development planning authorities have no duties commitments through the delivery programme. or powers to make sure their plans have a strong • Co-ordinating the work of local authorities to influence, either nationally or locally. support the aspirations for housing delivery, as 1.10____The independent panel recommended set out in the National Planning Framework (NPF). that strategic development plans are removed • Bringing together infrastructure investment from the system and that we should focus instead programmes to promote an infrastructure first on co-ordinating development and infrastructure at approach, provide a co-ordinated audit of economic this scale. We agree, but we recognise that strategic and social regional infrastructure, identify the need planning has an important contribution to make for strategic investment and support necessary to delivering a high performing planning system. cross-boundary working. Any changes to the system should support cross-boundary collaboration, and improve • Co-ordinating funding of infrastructure projects, the co-ordination of strategic development potentially including an infrastructure levy, and and infrastructure priorities. working with others, in both the public and private sectors, to develop regional funding and finance 1.11____Planners working at a regional scale should packages that support their strategies for growth. play an active role in partnership working. Strategic planners could add significant value by helping to • Acting as a ‘bridge’ between local and national shape future spatial priorities for investment and levels by making sure that local development plans providing timely evidence to support stronger joint support the delivery of wider strategic priorities. decision making. Planning should contribute to Partnerships involving business representatives wider regional activities, including economic and as well as the public sector could provide a forum social infrastructure delivery, as well as supporting where regionally significant matters and common a clear dialogue between national and local tiers goals can be discussed and used to inform local of government. Working together at a regional strategies and development planning. level would also allow local authorities to combine 1.14____We would welcome views on the above resources and share potential risks. actions. We believe they could form the basis of 1.12____We agree that strategic development plans new duties to help planning authorities to be actively should be removed from the system, so that planners involved in regional partnership working. We are can better respond to and be involved in wider also open to considering making these actions regional partnership working. Instead, we propose discretionary powers which allow local authorities that the National Planning Framework (NPF) sets out to decide whether this level of co-ordination would regional planning priorities. By incorporating regional be of value. We would welcome views on working strategies at a national scale we would remove the arrangements and governance. We are keen to procedural requirements associated with preparing avoid creating new partnerships where tasks and adopting four stand-alone strategic development can be achieved through existing arrangements. plans. This would also give more weight to the spatial 1.15____Within the above context, the ongoing strategies for the regions as the National Planning review of the National Transport Strategy and Framework (NPF) is prepared and adopted by Scottish the consideration of regional partnership working. Ministers with input from the Scottish Parliament. PageWe 70 would also welcome views on the potential to A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 09
reconsider the roles, responsibilities and areas enterprise and skills review2 has been exploring of influence of regional transport partnerships the regional geography of economic development in relation to land use planning and associated and includes proposals that combine stronger transport appraisals, prioritisation and delivery. national oversight with additional regional coverage for the South of Scotland and developing regional Regional geography partnerships across Scotland. This could also connect 1.16____The way in which local authorities and their with emerging work on the development of a Scottish partners are currently working together at a regional Rural Infrastructure Plan. scale is dynamic, and this is relevant to the future of 1.19____All of these arrangements are potentially strategic spatial planning in Scotland. relevant to the future of strategic planning. We need 1.17____The emerging Tay Cities Deal (Perth and planning to respond to changing regional priorities Dundee, together with Angus and the North of and groups, rather than focusing on fixed boundaries. Fife) is bringing together economic development, We propose that existing strategic development planning and transport programmes to provide a planning authorities form part of, or are replaced joined up and branded approach to supporting future with, partnerships whose membership extends investment. In South East Scotland, regional planning beyond planning to include all those with a role in and transport functions are increasingly aligning and planning, prioritising and delivering regional economic linking with economic development and proposals development and investment in infrastructure. for a city region deal. The three Ayrshire authorities 1.20____We would welcome views on the following are working together to prepare their own ‘growth options for the scale and coverage of regional deal’. Joint working on the Glasgow and Clyde Valley partnership working: City Region Deal, driven by economic development, is now established and moving forward. Aberdeen • Rather than defining or fixing the boundaries of City and Shire have a long tradition of co-operation partnerships which may or may not reflect changing to provide a North East perspective on growth and regional partnerships that emerge over time, local development and their city deal supports taking this authorities could define the geography of their forward with strong private sector representation. involvement in regional partnerships locally. This would allow, for example, strategic planning to 1.18____There is also wider work across all seven better align with emerging city and growth deals. cities, supported by the Scottish Cities Alliance. Regional land use partnerships, to help deliver the • We could link strategic planning with the ongoing aims of the Land Use Strategy, will be explored Enterprise and Skills Review and its proposals for further. Regional Marine Partnerships are being regional working covering the Highlands and Islands, established to undertake marine planning. Our South of Scotland and regional partnership network. commitment to addressing climate change is also • We could use the National Planning Framework driving wider partnership working, for example (NPF) to identify priority areas where future in the Climate Ready Clyde Project.1 The ongoing regional partnership working should take place.
1 http://www.sniffer.org.uk/knowledge-hubs/sustainable-places/climate-ready- 2 http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00508466.pdf clyde/
The Tay Cities Region – Partnership for Growth The opportunity to secure a City Region Deal has brought together the leaders and chief executives of local authorities across the region to work together as a strategic partnership. The four authorities (Angus, Dundee City, Fife and Perth and Kinross Councils) are collaborating with their Community Planning Partners, the private sector and voluntary organisations to develop and deliver on an agreed vision for the region as a distinctive place. The partnership has identified how the region’s potential can be unlocked, including by supporting key growth sectors and fostering innovation and skills development. The need to address social and economic inequalities in both urban and rural areas and support transport and digital infrastructure investment are also identified as key regional priorities. Page 71 10 Places, people and planning
Proposal 3: Improving national spatial planning • Extending the existing period of 60 days and policy of Parliamentary consideration to 90 days to allow for enhanced transparency and national 1.21____The role of Scotland’s National Planning democratic engagement. Framework (NPF) has developed and grown since the first, non-statutory NPF was adopted in 2004, • Giving the National Planning Framework (NPF) and through its two versions as a statutory document (together with the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)) in NPF2 (2009) and NPF3 (2014).3 We want to build stronger status. Consistency of local development on the growing awareness of NPF, and support our plans with the National Planning Framework (NPF) proposals for stronger co-ordination of regional should also be independently tested and confirmed. planning by producing a spatial strategy that is prepared following even more joint working and • Working closely with infrastructure providers involvement. to contribute to the delivery of the National Planning Framework (NPF). This will require Alignment with wider policy careful consideration owing to the varying roles, 1.22____We have already announced in the responsibilities, legal and regulatory context within Programme for Government4 that the next Strategic which each infrastructure provider works. A delivery Transport Projects Review (STPR) will be in line programme for the National Planning Framework with the next iteration of the National Planning (NPF) should be developed in close collaboration with Framework (NPF) and a review of the National regional partnerships and there should be a strong Transport Strategy is underway and will inform the sense of shared ownership of the actions it contains. next STPR. We recognise that we should consider spatial planning priorities as part of future reviews of Streamlining planning policy the Infrastructure Investment Plan. This will allow for 1.25____Despite the aims of previous reforms for local spending on infrastructure to be more clearly aligned development plans to be map-based, many are still with proposals for future growth, regeneration and lengthy and include a great deal of policy content. We development. believe this needs to change and that the National Planning Framework (NPF) and Scottish Planning 1.23____We will continue to ensure that the National Policy (SPP) could better support the planning system Planning Framework (NPF) brings together wider by having a stronger statutory status. This could be Scottish Government policies and strategies across achieved by either making them part of the statutory all sectors, including but not limited to the Scottish development plan, or by ensuring that both are given Planning Policy (SPP), Energy Strategy, Climate due weight in decision making through their local Change Plan and Scottish Climate Change Adaptation implementation. Programme, Land Use Strategy, Digital Strategy, National Marine Plan and our national policy on 1.26____Depending on the changes that are taken architecture, Creating Places. We will also ensure that forward, we would consider whether the Scottish planning at this scale maintains its role as the spatial Planning Policy (SPP) preparation process also needs expression of Scotland’s Economic Strategy. to be updated. For example, if it is given statutory weight, the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) could be 1.24____An enhanced national spatial strategy prepared alongside the National Planning Framework which provides greater clarity on regional priorities (NPF) and given the same level of consultation and (informed by the work of regional partnerships) consideration by Parliament. would have greater significance and relevance across Government policy areas. We therefore propose 1.27____Either option could allow local development building on the provisions for the National Planning plans to focus on providing a clear and engaging spatial Framework (NPF) introduced by the 2006 Act by: strategy, rather than acting as a rule book for decision making with very detailed and repetitive policies. • Extending the review cycle to 10 years However, place-based planning must recognise and (with a 30-year vision), whilst making provision reflect the diversity of planning in different parts of for interim updates to be made where necessary. the country. Local development plans could still include policies where they are required to identify departures from the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) that are justified 3 http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00453683.pdf on the basis of distinctive local circumstances. 4 http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0050/00505210.pdf Page 72 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 11
Proposal 4: Stronger local development plans consultation and scrutiny through the examination process. 1.28____As well as being engaging, development plans need to be strong and practical. Building 1.30____Alongside these changes, we propose working on previous reforms, our proposals aim to ensure with local authorities to better define the relationship local development plans can better respond to their between development plans and development changing context. We agree with the independent management, and the role of non-statutory panel that the ‘main issues report’ has not been an supplementary guidance in informing decision effective way of involving people. For consultation making. At both the national and local level, there to be more effective, planning authorities should would be benefit in streamlining planning guidance produce draft plans which are easy to access and on specific types of development, to provide a understand, and set out clear proposals for people manual or set of advice that guides how applications to comment on. It is important that draft plans are for planning consents are considered. This would help fully informed by robust evidence from the outset. to remove significant amounts of policy detail from We also agree that the lifespan of plans should be the development plan. longer, and the time it takes to prepare them should be reduced. Examinations 1.29____We propose the following changes to local 1.31____We accept the independent panel’s view development plans: that local ownership and responsibility for the development plan is undermined by current • Removing the requirement for a main issues arrangements for a centrally administered report to be prepared and consulted on. We would examination of the plan, which is undertaken replace this with a requirement for a draft plan to at the end of the preparation process. Current be published and fully consulted on, before it is arrangements can be lengthy and result in finalised and adopted. This would mean responses a significant financial cost to local authorities. to the draft plan could be used to guide changes, As the examination takes place late in the process, and these changes could be explained in feedback it is very difficult to address any significant issues to those who have been involved. that are outstanding at this stage.
• Requiring local development plans to be reviewed 1.32____It is important that a clear national and every 10 years. We agree in principle with the regional picture of requirements informs local independent panel that there should be a shorter development plans. However, decisions on the plan preparation period to allow more time to focus future of a place, including where development on delivering the plan. However, we believe this should happen, should be made locally, and local could be better supported through guidance and people should be fully involved. We want to ensure training rather than by setting a fixed period. that people have more meaningful opportunities to influence where development should take place. • Making provision for plans to be updated within However, this needs good evidence and input the 10-year review cycle. This would allow plans from professionals, so that everyone involved to be more responsive to change, but care will be can properly understand the level of development required to avoid confusion. Our view is that the required and how an area can support it, before ‘triggers’ for updating a plan could be outlined specific development sites and proposals are nationally and agreed locally to provide some considered and agreed. stability and make sure that plans are flexible but not in a constant review cycle. This is 1.33____Many people value the credibility that intended to improve scope to focus on delivery. comes with a rigorous and independent process of scrutiny provided by examinations. Some planning • Removing the provisions for statutory issues can be very challenging and difficult decisions supplementary guidance to form part of the should not be avoided. Independent scrutiny development plan so that people can find can help to establish what is needed from a plan, out everything they need to know about the that appropriate information has been gathered, future of their area in one place. This will mean that people will be properly involved and that, that important content is included in the main ultimately, developments will be delivered in line body of the plan and therefore subjected to full with the vision in the local development plan. Page 73 12 Places, people and planning
1.34____We do not suggest removing examinations 1.35____We propose that gatechecks are chaired altogether but we agree with the independent panel by independent reporters from the Directorate for that earlier scrutiny in the plan preparation process Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) and would be helpful. We propose that plans should be supported by relevant specialists. Including the views ‘gatechecked’ by an independent reporter at an early of a citizen’s panel at this stage would also support stage before the draft plan is prepared. Planning our broader aim of empowering communities. authorities would need to pass this stage before If necessary and appropriate, consideration could they can go ahead with developing and consulting be given to using professional mediation to further on their draft plan. The gatecheck would establish resolve any issues arising at this stage. whether the technical evidence is sufficiently sound to prepare a deliverable spatial strategy. We believe 1.36____We recognise that as the preparation stage the following matters could usefully be assessed at of a plan progresses, there may still be some issues this early but critical stage: to deal with and that an examination towards the end of the process may still be needed. Before • That the development plan scheme sets out how the plan is finalised, we propose that unresolved the local community will be involved in developing issues would still be dealt with by an examination. proposals for change and has been framed in We expect that the earlier gatecheck would mean consultation with the relevant community councils. there is less scrutiny at this stage and that this would reduce costs and timescales. • That the plan takes account of community planning. 1.37____Alongside these proposals for change, • That the key outcomes required from the plan have we believe we can work with planning authorities been clearly defined. to make sure that the evidence base for local development plans is more streamlined and • That the amount of land needed for housing over effective. Research into the Strategic Environmental the plan period has been agreed. Assessment (SEA) of development plans is underway, with a report due to be published later this year. • That the required environmental assessment work, We expect the findings of this research will help including a flood risk appraisal, is carried out. us to better understand how future assessment and reporting requirements could support and be • That there has been an audit of existing proportionate to a new planning system. We have infrastructure levels and necessary interventions also made proposals on planning for housing in have been prioritised, including the plan’s transport section 3 which aim to simplify requirements for appraisal and other types of infrastructure defining housing figures within development plans.
1.38____The whole local development plan process must be accompanied by strong project management and this should be a priority for further planning skills development.
South Ayrshire Local Development Plan (LDP) The 2016 overall winner of the Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning was South Ayrshire Council. Its South Ayrshire Local Development Story Map is an online, interactive LDP, designed to be in a user-friendly and non-technical format. Layers of information, reflective of the local area, and building on a solid approach to mapping, have led to transformational change across the authority.
Page 74 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 13
Proposal 5: Making plans that deliver like to hear people’s views on whether this change would be either necessary or helpful, taking into 1.39____Decisions on planning applications should be account the research findings. We believe that a more made in accordance with a development plan which strategic, zoning approach to housing allocations, has been properly evidenced and prepared with the such as improving the use of Simplified Planning involvement of local people. However, at present Zones, could be a simpler way of strengthening the some practices undermine the role of development development plan and establishing the need for plans. We want that to change, so that allocation development at an early stage (see section 3). of a site in a development plan gives more certainty that development will happen. A stronger commitment to delivery 1.40____Where a plan is prepared with the local 1.44____There are other ways in which plans can community and developers, it should be accepted provide more certainty. We propose the following: that other proposals, which could undermine the plan’s aims, will only be supported following • Setting out the minimum level of information additional scrutiny. Local authorities and needed to support allocations within the infrastructure providers should be clear that they development plan. This will ensure consistent have shared responsibility to fulfil the commitments information is available and that there is enough set out in the plan. detail to allow the planning authority to make an informed appraisal. It will also increase confidence 1.41____Proposed housing developments should that if a site is included in a plan, it can be delivered. be fully supported by the development plan. For developers and investors, an allocated housing • Information on site assessment to be submitted site within a plan should bring certainty and by the site proposer and appraised before any confidence in the principle that development site is allocated in the plan. This would include of the site will proceed in line with the delivery economic and market appraisal information to programme, providing more detailed considerations provide greater confidence about the effectiveness are addressed. Infrastructure providers also need of sites and when they can be delivered. This could to be convinced that allocated sites will be taken also allow for closer monitoring of performance. forward as programmed. Greater confidence in the We recognise that this could have implications for deliverability of allocated sites should also mean resources – we would consider the practicalities there is greater confidence that other areas will of this in more detail if it is agreed that it should be protected. be taken forward.
Planning permission in principle for allocated sites • Encouraging a broader, zoned approach to meeting short and longer-term housing needs. Rather 1.42____We commissioned research5 to consider than piecing together individual sites promoted whether planning permission in principle should by developers, we want planners to have the be attached to allocated sites within the confidence to guide how an area should grow over development plan. The research has found that the long term. Priority sites should also be identified there is ‘conditional support’ for the proposed and enabled as far as possible. reform, but that this is ‘complex and nuanced.’ We have reservations about the amount of upfront • Stronger measures for public involvement for sites work that would be needed to achieve this, and that have not been included in the plan. There must the implications arising for all those concerned as be good involvement in the development plan, well as for development planning procedures. This so that sites which are allocated are fully discussed would also need to be fully in line with and meet all with communities before they are confirmed as European obligations for environmental assessment. allocations. For sites where there has not been this involvement as part of the plan making process, 1.43____Whilst we agree that this approach has we think it is reasonable to expect developers potential benefits, we are concerned that it may to engage more with communities. Our proposals provide limited benefits which do not outweigh the for fees (section 4) and increased community extra time and complexity it would add. We would involvement (section 2) support this. It could also
5 Research project to consider planning permission in principle for sites allocated be argued that there should be less consultation on in the development plan: Ryden in association with Brodies (December 2016) allocated sites, for example by reducing or removing https://beta.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/reforming-planning-system/Page 75 14 Places, people and planning
requirements for consultation before the application 1.47____A sharper focus on delivery could introduce is made. We would welcome views on this. extra demands on time and resources for local planning teams. The move towards a longer review • Working with the statutory key agencies to make period is also intended to enable a stronger focus on sure that their engagement at the development delivery to emerge. Wider expertise may be required plan allocation stage is meaningful and informed by to address matters such as development economics, appropriate evidence. If they have agreed to a site programming and costing of infrastructure. However, being allocated in a plan, the key agencies and other this would be a worthwhile investment if it leads infrastructure providers should not be in a position to a far more thorough assessment of how the plan of advising against the principle of development on performs and stronger evidence for action. It would the site later on, unless there has been a clear and also help to reduce the level of work required at the significant change in circumstances. Further front development management stage. loading of engagement and evidence gathering in this way could have resource implications that 1.48____We will therefore work with partners to will need to be considered further. support additional training and guidance to improve the preparation and monitoring of local development Programming delivery plan delivery programmes. We recognise that there 1.45____Plans must lead to development on the are different delivery challenges in different parts ground. In practice this has proved challenging. of the country and will use pilot work to explore While planning can set out what should happen this further in collaboration with the Scottish Futures in the future, achieving this depends on partnership Trust. This will help to build skills and provide insights with and buy-in from a wide range of public and into how they can become more purposeful delivery private sector bodies. programmes in the future system.
1.46____We propose replacing ‘action programmes’ which support development plans with stronger ‘delivery programmes’ which have a clearer purpose. Delivery programmes would be a more major part of the development plan and we would want to see a stronger requirement for local authority-wide involvement in them, as well as other stakeholders with an interest in their delivery. We would expect delivery programmes to be detailed and practical. We would also expect planning authorities to monitor the programmes to identify whether commitments to deliver are being met. There may be scope for wider improvements to how information is managed to support delivery programmes. This will be considered further by the digital task force (section 4).
Page 76 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 15
MAKING PLANS FOR THE FUTURE – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS:
KEY QUESTION
A: Do you agree that our proposed package of reforms will improve development planning? Please explain your answer.
Optional technical questions 1. Do you agree that local development plans should be required to take account of community planning?
2. Do you agree that strategic development plans should be replaced by improved regional partnership working? 2(a) How can planning add greatest value at a regional scale? 2(b) Which activities should be carried out at the national and regional levels? 2(c) Should regional activities take the form of duties or discretionary powers? 2(d) What is your view on the scale and geography of regional partnerships? 2(e) What role and responsibilities should Scottish Government, agencies, partners and stakeholders have within regional partnership working?
3. Should the National Planning Framework (NPF), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) or both be given more weight in decision making? 3(a) Do you agree with our proposals to update the way in which the National Planning Framework (NPF) is prepared?
4. Do you agree with our proposals to simplify the preparation of development plans? 4(a) Should the plan review cycle be lengthened to 10 years? 4(b) Should there be scope to review the plan between review cycles? 4(c) Should we remove supplementary guidance?
5. Do you agree that local development plan examinations should be retained? 5(a) Should an early gatecheck be added to the process? 5(b) Who should be involved? 5(c) What matters should the gatecheck look at? 5(d) What matters should be the final examination look at? 5(e) Could professional mediation support the process of allocating land?
6. Do you agree that an allocated site in a local development plan should not be afforded planning permission in principle?
7. Do you agree that plans could be strengthened by the following measures: 7(a) Setting out the information required to accompany proposed allocations 7(b) Requiring information on the feasibility of the site to be provided 7(c) Increasing requirements for consultation for applications relating to non-allocated sites 7(d) Working with the key agencies so that where they agree to a site being included in the plan, they do not object to the principle of an application
8. Do you agree that stronger delivery programmes could be used to drive delivery of development? 8(a) What should they include?
Page 77 16 Places, people and planning
PEOPLE MAKE THE SYSTEM 02 WORK
We want Scotland’s planning system to empower people to decide the future of their places.
Proposal 6 Giving people an opportunity to plan their own place
Proposal 7 Getting more people involved in planning
Proposal 8 Improving public trust
Proposal 9 Keeping decisions local – rights of appeal
Page 78 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 17
2.1____People are at the heart of our proposals for 2.6____We think that it is important to create a new reform. Everyone should have an opportunity to get right for communities to prepare plans for their own involved in planning. People care about the places places. This could be achieved by giving communities where they live, work and play, but many find the the powers to create their own ‘local place plans’ planning system complicated and uninspiring. and for these plans to be used as a framework for development within local development plans. 2.2____We need a planning system that reaches out to people and encourages them to welcome 2.7____We do not want to promote unreasonable and influence change. Previous reforms and protectionism. We believe that local place plans legislation aimed to achieve this by giving people should help to deliver development, so that the better opportunities to be informed and consulted choices that one community makes do not unfairly early in the planning process. However, since then, put pressure on others to take on a greater share a movement of community empowerment has of development. We want to see plans where grown across Scotland and public service reform communities say what they themselves will has required service providers to respond do to help deliver change in a sustainable way. to the principles of prevention, partnership, Some communities have been doing this already, people and performance.6 and we want others to get involved.
2.3____People rightly expect to have a stronger 2.8____In England ‘neighbourhood plans’ brought say in the decisions that affect them and their forward under the Localism Act (2011) give people communities. Future changes to the planning the opportunity to influence the future of the place system offer a valuable opportunity to achieve where they live or work. We want to consider similar this. Moving from just informing or consulting opportunities for communities in Scotland. Whilst people to involving them will take time and effort, there is an existing space for community-led plans, but will improve confidence and trust in planning there is no statutory link between such plans and and lead to better outcomes. the local development plan. We agree with the independent panel that community-led plans Proposal 6: Giving people an opportunity to plan should have a clear connection with the statutory their own place development plan. However, we also recognise 2.4____We want to give people a stronger say in the that it is unlikely that all communities will have future of their own place. New opportunities can their own plans for some time. Building a culture of arise where local people actively design, rather than empowerment in planning so that people feel willing comment on plans for the future. Local people know and able to bring forward their own plans will take how their places work now, and are well placed to time and an investment of resources. be involved in deciding how they can be improved 2.9____We have set out some possible key ingredients in the future. Within any community there are many of local place planning in Figure 1. We propose different views and priorities. However, where there changes to legislation which: are good opportunities for these to be fully discussed, people can reach a shared understanding on how • Allow communities to prepare local place plans future change and development can improve, that set out where development requirements, rather than undermine, quality of life. as defined by the broader local development plan, can be met; and 2.5____Planning can lead a full and open discussion on the location, scale, pace, and design of change • Place a duty on planning authorities to adopt these and development in our communities. To make plans as part of the statutory development plan if that happen, planners need to do much more than the above requirement is met. simply consult communities on proposals from their local authorities or developers. People, and the 2.10____We would support this with policy and relationships between them, are the key to successful guidance which makes sure that these plans begin to planning. Community trust in the system can only emerge as early as possible in the local development grow if everyone is given a meaningful opportunity plan making process. To help inform this, we will to get involved. commission further research to explore options for local place plans in more detail. 6 Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services (2011) www.gov.scot/resource/doc/352649/0118638.pdf Page 79 18 Places, people and planning
Figure 1: Key considerations for local place plans
Pre-plan preparation
• Community bodies should be able to register their interest with a local authority if they want to prepare a local place plan. Community bodies could include existing groups (for example community councils) or any group of a certain size/location. Definitions of a range of community bodies can be found in land reform and community empowerment legislation and we would consider this further.
• Local authorities would have a duty to consider applications from community bodies to prepare a local place plan and will need to monitor activity in its area. Where available this could be supported by the use of digital mapping.
• Community bodies should give some indication of:
• The boundary of the area the local place plan will cover. In many cases communities could define their own areas, but in others the local development plan or locality plans could highlight where they would add most value.
• Who they have (and intend to) involve and how, whether there is wider community interest in a local place plan, and the issues it would cover.
• If a community body is endorsed by the local authority, it would be this body the local authority empowers to prepare a local place plan.
• Where another body wants to make proposals under community empowerment or land reform legislation, these proposals could help to shape both the local place plan and local development plan. We would encourage communities to work together and with others.
Plan preparation
• It is the community body’s responsibility to prepare the plan. They must make sure that the plan is: generally in line with local and national planning policies and other legislation; that they consult their community and get their approval; and that the plan plays a positive role in delivering development.
• Local place plans need a mechanism to ‘sign them off’. In England, a referendum is held and if more than 50% of the vote is in favour of the plan it is approved. While we agree with this in principle, it can introduce further costs and so we will look at using information technology to make this part of the process affordable in the event that this proposal is supported.
• Local authorities would have a duty to adopt the local place plan as part of the local development plan, unless they think the plan opposes the wider aims of the local development plan. The issues above can be assessed at the proposed development plan gatecheck.
• Arrangements for local place plan proposals to be rolled forward into replacement plans would need to be included in legislation or guidance but could be partly addressed by new powers to update plans.
• If the local authority does not adopt the local place plan as part of the development plan, the community body could appeal to Scottish Ministers.
Page 80 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 19
Building local community capacity 2.14____Section 1 sets out our proposals to improve development plans. It is vital that communities play 2.11____We will also continue to support innovation an active role in preparing local development plans and the use of new techniques for involving for their areas. Community councils already have communities in development planning and a statutory role in the planning system and could decision making. play a key part in empowering people to get 2.12____Through our design-led ‘charrette’ programme involved in planning. There are also many other we have supported communities to take part in organisations which could contribute to local place planning. Whilst there are many excellent examples planning, and we expect that growing empowerment of communities being proactively involved, we will add to this in the future. Current legislation believe that action needs to be prioritised in and says that community councils must be told when around communities where change is needed most. a development plan main issues report has been By refocusing and adding to our funding programme published. While we recognise that this is the legal to support involvement, including charrettes, in the minimum and that many planning authorities will coming years we will help communities with the do much more, we consider that there is value greatest levels of need to develop plans for their area in providing more opportunities for community as a priority. Community Planning can help to show councils to be involved in preparing local where that investment can best be targeted. development plans.
2.13____We recognise that communities vary and they 2.15____We propose giving community councils a may come up with a range of plans. Our proposals stronger role in planning by introducing a new duty would not try to fully control the form that local to consult them in preparing plans. While in many place plans might take. For example locality plans cases, community councils will already be actively which emerge as part of wider community planning engaged in development planning, we believe could also be used in development planning where that wider changes to the way in which plans are land use is relevant. We would welcome views on prepared (as set out in section 1) could include how communities might be identified and defined a stronger role for communities at key stages in the legislation and your ideas on the process that of decision making. communities could follow when preparing local place plans, as set out in Figure 1.
Isle of Rum – Community Land Use Plan In 2015 the Isle of Rum Community Trust were assisted by PAS to produce a community land use plan. The community worked in partnership with organisations including The Highland Council and Scottish Natural Heritage to explore how its aims of increasing Rum’s population to a more sustainable level, offer a better range of housing and improve tourism could be achieved. The plan needed to carefully balance these aims with protection of the unique natural and built heritage of the island. The collaboration produced a plan which was effectively ‘owned’ by the community. The plan was subsequently adopted by The Highland Council as supplementary guidance, which in turn forms part of the statutory local development plan.
Page 81 20 Places, people and planning
2.16____We also recognise that we need to provide 2.17____As these organisations are voluntary and support, training and guidance to help make sure therefore limited in what they can achieve, we community councils realise their full potential will continue to encourage them to engage earlier to contribute to the planning process. We offer in the process to help them actively shape proposals support to community councils by working with the rather than just react to them. We do not believe Improvement Service, Edinburgh Napier University that existing arrangements for community councils and the Community Council Liaison Officers to to be consulted on planning applications should encourage networking and the sharing of good be removed. practice. This has included launching a community council website (www.communitycouncils.org.uk); funding a series of digital engagement workshops for community councillors; hosting networking events for Community Council Liaison Officers (CCLO) twice a year; and setting up a CCLO knowledge hub to support improvement and development.
Design-led Charrettes and the 2016-2017 Activating Ideas Fund The Scottish Government provides funding to help community groups, local authorities and third sector organisations design the future of their areas. Charrettes can bring together views about how an area should change and use these views to form proposals which are explored and tested in a collaborative way over a focused timeframe. The approach is design-led – it allows options for change to be clearly visualised, and in turn this has helped to inspire a much wider range of people to get involved in planning. This year, the programme has been accompanied by an opportunity to access further funds which can be used to help deliver the outputs from charrettes.
Page 82 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 21
Proposal 7: Getting more people involved in planning 2.21____It could therefore be suggested that planning authorities already have the scope to involve children 2.18____Local authorities and organisations, and young people in their development plans. including community councils, can do more to make Recent draft guidance on Children’s Service Plans sure that a broader cross-section of society takes on noted a wide range of existing structures to support the challenge of active citizenship and gets involved the engagement of children and young people e.g. in planning. local youth councils, pupil councils, young people’s Children and young people organisations, young people’s committees and other formal and informal structures. 2.19____Children and young people have a significant and particularly relevant contribution to make 2.22____However, the independent panel reported to deciding the future of our places. The United that they had found little evidence of engagement Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child7 with young people. We agree that more can be states that the best interests of the child must be done to actively promote these examples rather a top priority in all decisions and actions that affect than introduce a statutory requirement prioritising children. This underlines the role that planning should enhanced engagement for one set of people play in creating good quality places that provide over another. opportunities for leisure, play and culture, and support the children’s right to have the best possible 2.23____We will therefore bring forward proposals health. Plans which are put in place now will decide that will require planning authorities to consult more where and how today’s children will live and work in widely, including by using methods that are likely to the coming decades. For example, decisions affecting involve children and young people in the process. We climate change are relevant not only to people now, will do this as a priority through secondary legislation but also to future generations. using existing powers and recommend that the early examination gatecheck includes a test of the steps 2.20____The independent panel recommended taken by the planning authority to engage children that there should be a new right for young people and young people in preparing the development plan. to be consulted on the development plan. Set within In addition, we will encourage planning authorities the framework of public bodies duties under both to work with organisations such as YoungScot, equalities legislation and arising from Article 12 Youth Scotland, the Children’s Parliament and (the right to an opinion and for it to be listened PAS to develop and expand the use of innovative to and taken seriously) of the Convention, we methods for involving children and young people are already aware that planning authorities are in planning. working to involve children and young people in their development plans. Examples in Aberdeen City, Dundee City, Tayplan and Highland have been recently recognised in our Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning.
7 https://www.unicef.org.uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/ Page 83 22 Places, people and planning
2.24____We would like to work with other Barriers to engagement organisations to support planning authorities to work 2.25____We recently commissioned research to with schools to educate and involve young people identify the factors that limit involvement in the across Scotland in planning. We will also show what planning system. We will consider the findings can be achieved by specifically seeking to involve of this work and take appropriate steps to ensure children and young people in preparing national that the barriers to involvement for all groups planning policies. The Place Standard8, a simple within society are tackled. tool that is available for anyone to use, provides an excellent opportunity to involve people of all ages and have conversations about the quality and future of our many different places. The Royal Town Planning Institute has also been working to inspire young people who may be interested in a career in planning, and Scotland benefits from an active network of young planners.
Greening Dunfermline Town Centre – A Placemaking Approach Led by Young People The Scottish Government supported Greenspace Scotland to work with Youth Scotland, Youth First and the Fife Youth Advisory Group on a pilot placemaking project to improve the town centre in Dunfermline. The project trained and empowered young people to develop their role in helping to lead changes to their places. It used innovative, interactive ways of engaging people in planning and delivering town centre improvements. The young people used tools (the Place Standard and the Town Centre Toolkit) and this led to working with the local community to find opportunities for urban greening and increasing the connections between local greenspaces and the town centre, and making it a more attractive and enjoyable place. You can find out more details about the project at: http://www.scotlandstowns.org/greening_dunfermline_town_centre
8 http://www.placestandard.scot/#/home Page 84 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 23
Proposal 8: Improving public trust outcomes and eventually result in substantial costs and delays. 2.26____Planning authorities can go further to make sure they actively involve people. In preparing a 2.30____Developers can benefit where they take development plan, there is already a requirement communities with them, rather than meeting local to set out how consultation will be undertaken. resistance to change at every stage. Communities Some authorities have used imaginative and also have much to gain from helping to shape change, inspiring ways to involve people in preparing rather than reacting to it. Planning must be done with, their development plan, but there is still room rather than to, communities. for improvement. People are contributing their own time when they get involved in planning, 2.31____Involving people more fully at an early and we must use that time effectively. stage is essential. Whilst we can achieve much through training and good practice, we also want Development Plan Schemes to look at how the statutory requirements can be 2.27____Development Plan Schemes define how improved to encourage everyone to get involved and when people will be involved in preparing at the earliest stage possible. Planning authorities development plans. There is currently no requirement are already able to require further involvement to consult on the content of development plan beyond the statutory minimum. schemes. We propose requiring that community We propose: councils are involved in their preparation and will also extend this to the key agencies and other • To improve and clarify the statutory requirements infrastructure providers. Measures to involve for pre-application consultation (PAC) for major children and young people should be set out within and national developments, for example to require the Development Plan Scheme. To reflect the need developers to hold more than one public meeting. We for shared corporate ‘ownership’ of the development will consider how any second meeting or event can plan, the development plan scheme should also have focus on giving more active feedback to communities. the input and authorisation of the local authority This will make sure that communities hear how convenor and chief executive. their views have been taken into account before any formal planning application is submitted. We 2.28____While additional involvement at this stage also recognise that the quality of the conversations may add a little time to the plan preparation process, which are held is fundamentally important, and that this will help to ensure that people are able to procedures will need to be supported by training shape how, when and why they get involved and improved practice to make sure that people at each stage in the development planning process. are listened to properly. We would welcome views We also propose that the new early stage on whether this can be accommodated within the independent examination of development plans current 12 week statutory timescale. allows for the approach to community engagement to be agreed alongside key components of the plan’s • To strengthen requirements for community evidence base. involvement in the case of development sites which have not been allocated in the development plan. Engagement in development management As noted in section 1, we believe developers should have to undertake fuller and more meaningful 2.29____Involvement in planning is not just a engagement as the site will not have been discussed matter for the public sector. Developments where with the community while the plan was being the existing community have been fully involved prepared. We propose requiring that both the local from the start can often have a smoother journey authority and relevant community council should through the planning process. At present, many agree the approach to be taken for these cases developers consult local people on their plans for and the cost should be met by the site promoter. major developments but the effectiveness of current arrangements varies. While there are examples of 2.32____Alongside this, we also want to see high good practice, limiting consultation to the current quality and innovative training of the development statutory requirements can mean that communities sector in community involvement as a further remain frustrated, uninvolved and often disappointed priority. Much can be achieved from our continued that their views do not appear to have been heard. work to mainstream the use of the Place Standard In turn, this can lead to conflict, undermine positive Page tool85 in informing plans and decisions. 24 Places, people and planning
Repeat and retrospective applications those breaches which cannot be resolved like this or in cases which merit formal action. 2.33____The independent panel reported that repeat applications can cause communities concern 2.38____The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 by contributing to a sense of frustration and introduced stronger powers for planning authorities undermining their trust that views are being listened to take formal action to deal with cases where to. Some applicants may also be reluctant to withdraw there has been a breach of control. We believe inactive or so-called ‘legacy cases’ from the system in that there is scope to further improve how planning order to keep their right to submit a further application enforcement works. As well as proposals to increase for no additional fee. fees for retrospective applications, we propose the following: 2.34____We propose: • To make it easier for planning authorities to recover • Removing the applicant’s right to submit a revised costs associated with taking enforcement action. If, or repeat application at no cost if an application for example, planning authorities incur costs through is refused, withdrawn, or an appeal is dismissed. taking direct action against a landowner who has Requiring a fee for all applications for planning not complied with the requirements of enforcement permission is proposed to encourage a ‘right first notices, the landowner could be required to pay time’ approach, to help to address community these costs. Introducing charging orders similar concerns and reflect the cost of processing to those available in building standards legislation repeat applications. could help to ensure that planning authorities can • Substantially increasing fees in cases requiring recover their costs from the person responsible. retrospective planning consent. • To substantially increase the financial penalties 2.35____Our wider proposals on planning fees for breaches of planning control. (section 4) also aim to encourage fuller involvement 2.39____We will also continue to work with Heads of in the planning process and deter practices which Planning Scotland (HoPS) and planning enforcement undermine community trust in the planning system. officers to develop good practice and consistent Enforcement approaches to planning enforcement across Scotland. 2.36____It is important that development receives appropriate consent and that unauthorised development is minimised. People lose confidence in the system where unauthorised development is undertaken whilst the vast majority respect due process.
2.37____The integrity of the development management process depends on the ability of planning authorities to take effective enforcement action where necessary. Public trust can be undermined where unauthorised development, which is unacceptable in planning terms, is allowed to go ahead without intervention. Research9 into planning enforcement in Scotland shows that the overwhelming majority of enforcement cases are resolved informally and flexibly. As a result, much of the enforcement activity carried out by authorities may go unrecorded in national data. Nevertheless, appropriate powers must be available to deal with
9 Planning Enforcement in Scotland: Research into the use of existing powers, barriers and scope for improvement. https://beta.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/reforming-planning-system/ Page 86 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 25
Proposal 9: Keeping decisions local – rights of appeal • Making provision for a wider range of other consents to be delegated. This would allow 2.40____There have been calls for planning reform decisions on applications to be reviewed by to introduce a third party right of appeal, also the local review body, rather than appealed referred to as an ‘equal’ or ‘balanced’ right of to Scottish Ministers. appeal. We believe that this would work against early, worthwhile and continuous engagement that 2.43____Apart from the cases that are currently empowers communities by encouraging people handled by local review bodies, all other appeals to intervene only at the end of the process rather are submitted to Ministers and most are decided than the beginning where most value can be added. by an independent reporter. If fewer appeals are This would also ignore the important role determined centrally, this would allow Ministers of elected members in representing communities in to make more decisions themselves, rather than planning decisions and community involvement in delegating most decisions to reporters. We would the development plan process, whilst delaying and welcome views on whether this would help to ensure undermining much needed development. Nationally, there is democratic accountability at all levels. In all it would be a disincentive to investment in Scotland, cases, a professional planning view would still be compared to other administrations and, moreover, needed, and that view would need to be taken into mean that more decisions are made by central account when making decisions. government, without such a right necessarily being representative of the wider community. We support 2.44____We realise that the success of this change the view of the independent panel on this issue and depends on the ability of the decision makers to do not propose a new right of appeal for third parties make sound decisions that are rooted firmly in clear to challenge development decisions. planning principles and policies. We are therefore also proposing training for all local elected members 2.41____However, we recognise that there are who are involved in a planning committee or a local opportunities to look at how we can improve review body and would welcome views on whether communities’ trust in the planning system in a more they should be tested on completion of training. positive way, and so we are now asking for views on the degree to which more decisions should be 2.45____The appeal process can add significant considered locally. administrative cost and, where decisions are not made swiftly, this can involve all parties in further 2.42____It is important that applicants delay. We therefore propose to introduce a fee have recourse to a review of a decision on a planning both for appeals to Ministers and for a review of application. Local review bodies were established a planning decision by the planning authority. These by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 to review measures, together with those in section 4, are decisions on certain ‘local developments’10 where intended to move decision-making to the appropriate that decision was taken by a planning officer, level of government whilst recognising the need rather than by elected members. We believe there to fund the planning system more effectively. is scope to build on this move towards greater local responsibility by: 2.46____In all these decisions, we agree with the independent panel that those making the decisions • Expanding the range of planning applications which should clearly summarise in their decision notice are subject to local review. We will review the how community views have been taken into account. hierarchy of developments to explore the extent to We will address this through guidance and practice. which reviews of decisions can be handled locally.
• For major developments which accord with the development plan, we think there could be scope for decisions granting permission to be determined under delegated powers and reviewed by the local review body rather than appealed to Scottish Ministers.
10 Local developments are those which are not categorised as either major developments in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 or as national developments in the National Planning Framework (NPF). Page 87 26 Places, people and planning
Recognising the distinctiveness of all our communities 2.51____We have also considered the independent panel’s recommendation that the powers of the 2.47____We recognise that planning in our island Cairngorms National Park Authority should be communities presents a different set of issues to reviewed. Whilst the arrangements for planning many other parts of Scotland. Whilst Scotland’s in the Cairngorms vary from those in the Loch inhabited islands are diverse, they share particular Lomond and The Trossachs National Park, we challenges, including added development and recognise that the character, capacity and sensitivities infrastructure costs. Development in an island setting of each park are also quite distinctive. As a result, tends to be more gradual and finely grained and so we are not proposing to debate or change these changes to the planning system which focus on larger arrangements as part of the wider review of the scale development are less likely to be relevant. system as a whole. Island communities can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including increased 2.52____We are aware that a well-functioning severe weather events and coastal erosion. More planning system is vital for the business activities immediately, running a planning service in these of Scotland’s farmers and rural communities. We circumstances can bring logistical challenges. will be examining a number of planning issues, such as permitted development rights, which 2.48____There are also island-specific opportunities, could potentially contribute to the development including a more readily identifiable community, of economic activity in rural Scotland. We will also strong local relationships extending to a tradition of be examining what measures need to be taken to self-sufficiency in many places, and a resource-rich increase the supply of affordable housing available high quality environment that supports good quality for retiring tenant farmers. of life.
2.49____An improved planning system should respond to the unique circumstances of all our communities and this principle underpins many of the wider proposals set out here. For example, some scope to depart from national policy within the local development plan will benefit island communities where their circumstances demand a more tailored approach. Island communities could also lead the way in putting many of the proposed changes in place, including by preparing local place plans. The proposals to broaden the scope for regional working could help the authorities to share skills to help address resourcing challenges.
2.50____Alongside our work to develop more detailed proposals for the Planning Bill and accompanying non-legislative changes, we will continue to work with the six local authorities who are represented on the Islands Strategic Group, to ensure any proposals for change are sufficiently flexible to respond to their unique but varied local circumstances. We will also look at opportunities for innovation, including using digital technology to overcome travel and distance barriers.
Page 88 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 27
PEOPLE MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
KEY QUESTION
B: Do you agree that our proposed package of reforms will increase community involvement in planning? Please explain your answer.
Optional technical questions 9. Should communities be given an opportunity to prepare their own local place plans? 9(a) Should these plans inform, or be informed by, the development requirements specified in the statutory development plan? 9(b) Does Figure 1 cover all of the relevant considerations?
10. Should local authorities be given a new duty to consult community councils on preparing the statutory development plan? 10(a) Should local authorities be required to involve communities in the preparation of the Development Plan Scheme?
11. How can we ensure more people are involved? 11(a) Should planning authorities be required to use methods to support children and young people in planning?
12. Should requirements for pre-application consultation with communities be enhanced? Please explain your answer(s). 12(a) What would be the most effective means of improving this part of the process? 12(b) Are there procedural aspects relating to pre-application consultation (PAC) that should be clarified? 12(c) Are the circumstances in which PAC is required still appropriate? 12(d) Should the period from the serving of the Proposal of Application Notice for PAC to the submission of the application have a maximum time-limit?
13. Do you agree that the provision for a second planning application to be made at no cost following a refusal should be removed?
14. Should enforcement powers be strengthened by increasing penalties for non-compliance with enforcement action?
15. Should current appeal and review arrangements be revised: 15(a) for more decisions to be made by local review bodies? 15(b) to introduce fees for appeals and reviews? 15(c) for training of elected members involved in a planning committee or local review body to be mandatory? 15(d) Do you agree that Ministers, rather than reporters, should make decisions more often?
16. What changes to the planning system are required to reflect the particular challenges and opportunities of island communities?
Page 89 28 Places, people and planning
BUILDING MORE HOMES AND DELIVERING 03 INFRASTRUCTURE
We want Scotland’s planning system to help deliver more high quality homes and create better places where people can live healthy lives and developers are inspired to invest.
Proposal 10 Being clear about how much housing land is required
Proposal 11 Closing the gap between planning consent and delivery of homes
Proposal 12 Releasing more ‘development ready’ land for housing
Proposal 13 Embedding an infrastructure first approach
Proposal 14 A more transparent approach to funding infrastructure
Proposal 15 Innovative infrastructure planning Page 90 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 29
3.1____More must be done to support the delivery Proposal 10: Being clear about how much housing of the homes that people need, now and in the land is required future. This is a high priority. While many factors are 3.4____We believe that there is a need to change currently limiting the number of homes being built the way we plan for housing. We agree with the across Scotland some of the solutions need to come independent panel that there is too great a focus from the planning system. Planning can assist by on debating precise numbers rather than delivering ensuring enough land is available for development, development and creating good quality places to live. but can go further by actively enabling development. Infrastructure has a critical role to play in supporting 3.5____We need to act now to resolve ongoing housing delivery. challenges in housing delivery. Changes in practice could have a more immediate impact than statutory 3.2____The benefits of housing development go amendments. We want to introduce a more strategic beyond making sure that everyone has somewhere and aspirational approach to establishing the number to call home. Health and improved quality of life of homes required at a higher level. By agreeing the is supported by well designed, functional places. amount of land required for housing much earlier in Housing in the right places can help to sustain the plan preparation process, planning and housing community facilities, contribute to the economy authorities, developers and communities can move and support jobs in the construction sector. The forward and focus on delivery. need to deliver more homes is in all our interests. National aspirations for housing development 3.3____We agree with the independent panel that planning must move away from debating overly 3.6____The independent panel called for housing complicated housing figures and focus much more targets to be set nationally. We are also aware on enabling development. We must all adapt to that planning and housing authorities will need to different market circumstances if the development continue to collaborate and engage with stakeholders sector is to contribute to the wider outcomes locally, to make sure there is proper consideration of communities need. Existing communities have local circumstances and commitment to delivering a critical role to play in accepting that further on the targets which are agreed. National or regional development is necessary if we are to ensure targets within the National Planning Framework (NPF) that everyone has a home. Developers also need could provide some clarity, but would have little to work effectively with planning authorities and practical effect if it is not consistent with local and communities to achieve this. developer priorities and commitments to investment.
Glasgow Commonwealth Games Athletes’ Village – Low Carbon Infrastructure The Athletes’ Village is a 35-hectare residential community now established in the East End of Glasgow. The 700 homes and 120-bed care home, as well as the adjacent Emirates Arena, are powered by a district heating system comprising a combined heat and power energy centre and 28km of pre-insulated pipes supplying heat and constant hot water. The system is approximately 30%–40% more efficient than conventional heating schemes, providing residents with substantial cost benefits. This system, alongside a Fabric First Approach to housing design as well as the use of solar PV panels, contributed to a 95% carbon reduction on 2007 levels. To ensure the site remains sustainable for years to come, the energy centre has been future-proofed to include capacity for an additional combined heat and power engine, boiler and thermal store. This will accommodate connection to further phases of housing development planned for the site. When fully operational it will also generate and export electricity to the national grid.
Page 91 30 Places, people and planning
3.7____Fundamentally, we want to improve the focus 3.9____Several changes could be explored further: on delivery and quality of place-making but also provide greater clarity and confidence on planning • The HNDA tool can be used to quickly derive for all those involved. To support this, we agree that housing estimates under a range of scenarios. the National Planning Framework (NPF) should be These estimates could be produced on the basis clear on our national and regional aspirations for of agreed policy assumptions so that the National housing delivery, and for these aspirations to be Planning Framework (NPF) provides a strategic used to guide and inform the way we plan for steer on national and regional aspirations housing at the local level. The estimated range of for housing. homes required over a 10-year period could provide a clear picture of what we are working towards, but • Providing more support to local authorities and also be sufficiently flexible to allow for changing certainty to developers by ‘signing off’ the number market circumstances. of homes that are needed at an early stage in the production of local development plans. This could 3.8____We have undertaken some initial work to be done either centrally, or through the early explore how this could be achieved. The independent gatecheck that is proposed to form part of the panel recommended that we strengthen the links examination process. between local authority housing strategies and local development plans. We have already made progress • Improving monitoring of housing land availability, in reducing the debate around housing figures, including by making audit information more by ensuring that the Housing Need and Demand transparent through publication of a housing Assessment (HNDA), which provides the evidence sites register online. base for land use planning and housing policy, is submitted to our Centre for Housing Market Analysis 3.10____Views on these options would be welcome. for appraisal as ‘robust and credible’. This, together On the basis of the responses to the consultation, with the development of the HNDA Tool, is helping we will revisit policy and guidance on effective to reduce the cost and complexity of HNDAs, and housing land and related guidance to housing limits the debate on numbers to an extent. managers.
Page 92 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 31
Proposal 11: Closing the gap between planning blockages. We recognise that there are some consent and delivery of homes challenges, as well as benefits arising from this proposal. To ensure clarity and to avoid delay 3.11____We are already taking steps to support at validation stage, further guidance on this housing delivery. Our More Homes Scotland approach would be needed. supports an increase in the supply of homes across all tenures, and a commitment to deliver 50,000 3.16____If a site does not progress as predicted in affordable homes over the current parliamentary the local development plan delivery programme or term. The approach includes more investment for if there is insufficient evidence that an application housing, from support for the affordable housing is deliverable, a range of tools are already available target to a Rural Housing Fund and Housing to planning authorities so that they can manage the Infrastructure Fund. situation. Using existing land assembly powers, local authorities can enable development themselves, 3.12____To further support housing delivery, planning remove the allocation from the plan or bring forward needs to play a different role in delivering good alternative sites instead. We want to see more quality homes in the right locations. More attention planning authorities and their partners intervening needs to be given to delivery, including place making to unblock developments using these and other tools. principles. Planners should be pro-actively involved in securing development on the ground rather 3.17____It is currently unusual for a planning authority than reacting to proposals for housing. Planning to take such steps. A change in direction is needed authorities should work with others to define where so that we can unlock housing sites for development, development should take place in an agreed plan, and make sites available at a range of scales, and ensure secure commitments to its delivery from all relevant that rates of house building increase. Rather than parties. They need to be clear on infrastructure simply allocating land and waiting for development requirements, its cost and how it will be financed. to commence, planning authorities should actively seek out new ways of delivering development where 3.13____The development of housing can be complex, progress is slow. There is a need to increase choice in involving developer, market and financial confidence. the housing market, and to support progressive local The gap between the numbers of planning consents authorities who want to shape their area and drive which are granted each year and the number development. This will complement delivery by the of homes which are built needs to be closed. private sector and reduce over-reliance on others to Actively enabling development find solutions. 3.14____Sites which are not being progressed are 3.18____In moving to a more active delivery role, we not only lost opportunities, but undermine the have a significant opportunity to diversify housing purpose of the local development plan by adding provision to support the expansion of new and to the pressure for land to be released elsewhere. alternative delivery models so that we can deliver a A stronger focus on the local development plan greater choice and range of housing. This can include delivery programme can go some way towards models such as custom and self-build (which already improving our understanding of what makes a makes a significant contribution in rural and island development happen or not happen. In turn this areas), Build to Rent, Private Rented Sector (PRS), can improve the capacity of planning authorities and specialist provision such as supported homes to make informed decisions when allocating land for the elderly. Alternative models and the promotion for housing in the plan and granting consent. of a broader range of sites through the development plan could be considered, together with more 3.15____Land allocated in development plans needs targeted use of publicly-owned land. Expanding to be supported by appropriate evidence that it how we deliver homes would also support small can be developed. More can also be achieved by and medium-sized developers and expand capacity having a sharper focus on delivery of development within the development industry if we can achieve proposals at the application stage. We propose also greater rates of construction. requiring, as part of national standards on validation requirements, that all major applications for housing are accompanied by appropriate information on the development viability. This will help planning authorities to identify and address any delivery Page 93 32 Places, people and planning
Planning and land reform 3.21____The responsibility for delivery should be shared, not just by local authorities and agencies 3.19____Proposals that emerged from earlier work on but also by those who have control of the land. land reform could be instrumental in helping planning Ministers are committed to consult with stakeholders to fulfil this role. We are determined to see more land on whether a development land tax approach could across Scotland in community ownership and have help to tackle the issues associated with sites being set an ambitious target of reaching one million acres held in the hope of improved market conditions. by 2020. We will continue to support and encourage Such an approach would require sites to be released local communities to take advantage of opportunities or a tax paid. that are open to them in this area, including through the Scottish Land Fund which makes £10 million per 3.22____Collectively, these proposals will play a critical year available for developing plans and buying the role in helping to deliver more homes and tackling land itself. In some cases, communities themselves market failures. They will also help the planning may choose to exercise their right to buy land to help system to enable development and achieve place deliver development. We are currently consulting making objectives. on a Land Rights and Responsibility Statement. The vision states that ‘A fair system of land rights and responsibilities should deliver greater public benefits and promote economic, social and cultural rights.’
3.20____We want to see a clear, accessible, effective and efficient system of legislation and policy which allows for the compulsory acquisition and purchase of legal interests in land and property for the public benefit. We will support interim measures, such as amendments to guidance, ahead of changes to legislation. Although they will not form part of the Planning Bill, we will investigate proposals which give local authorities more confidence and tools to acquire land which is not being used as allocated within the development plan. We will also explore how best the intended Compulsory Sale Orders legislation could complement existing tools to tackle the problem of abandoned buildings and land, and support wider measures that aim to secure the productive use of vacant and derelict land.
Self-build – Maryhill, Glasgow Glasgow City Council is bringing forward serviced plots for self-build as part of its housing strategy. The project will test the local appetite for self-build homes and offer an alternative option for those who want to stay living in the city. The small site, accommodating six plots, forms part of a wider regeneration area where a contemporary urban village is planned. If a design passport and code is followed, there is no need for self-builders to go through the formal planning process.
Page 94 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 33
Proposal 12: Releasing more ‘development ready’ 3.26____We recognise that preparing SPZs requires land for housing time and potentially financial support from planning authorities, with no planning application fee to follow. 3.23____Our proposals for development planning We want the development sector to be willing to aim to make plans more flexible but also stronger frontload their investment and contribute to scheme and more certain. We believe that longer-term preparation work, including masterplanning and planning, supported by zoning for housing, could assessments. As SPZs provide certainty about the help to achieve this. We are currently piloting the concept of development earlier on in the process use of Simplified Planning Zones (SPZs) for housing without going through the planning application development. Within these areas, development can process, they can offer an uplift in the value of the go ahead without the need for an application for land and possibly an earlier return on investment. planning consent, as long as it is in line with a clear and agreed scheme which sets out development 3.27____SPZs are often put in place through parameters, design guidelines and other criteria, partnership involving the planning authority and and environmental assessment requirements have developer. To strengthen this, we will consider how been met. we can resource the procedures for delivering SPZs on a wider scale. We are aware some planning 3.24____We believe greater use can be made of this authorities have had reservations about SPZs due to type of approach (effectively a way of consenting concerns that without a planning consent to provide masterplans) to support development. To encourage a framework for discussions it would be harder to their use we want to broaden the use and scope of access developer contributions. We will look at the a zoned approach to housing by updating provisions use of conditions or unilateral obligations to secure for Simplified Planning Zones. The independent panel greater certainty on delivery. We will also look at how recommended SPZs be rebranded. We would like to the proposed new finance and funding mechanisms invite views on this idea of creating these as ‘Ready for an infrastructure first approach could support the Planned’ or ‘Consented Development’ zones. Where use of SPZs. potential locations for these zones are identified in the development plan, community involvement could 3.28____To continue to build momentum and form an integral part of the process. An alternative experience in the meantime, we will continue to approach for this could be for the local authority to provide financial support to encourage additional put in place a general consent for key sites or areas SPZs for housing in the coming months. they want to promote for development.
3.25____We propose using the outcomes from the ongoing pilot work to identify how the statutory requirements and procedures can be made more flexible, to allow them to be introduced in a wider range of circumstances, to consider linkages with development planning, and to look at ways to speed up the preparation process. Figure 2 sets out the relevant procedures that could be updated.
Page 95 34 Places, people and planning
Figure 2: Better use of zoning to support the long-term planning of housing
Preparation of SPZ schemes has parallels with preparing local development plans, with opportunities for engagement, a draft placed on deposit for representations and opportunities for modification and a Public Local Inquiry at the end of the process. However, the current legislative requirements predate the last planning reform, and we want to ensure the process is brought in line with this wider review. We propose:
• Encouraging the preparation of SPZs as an integral part of preparing the development plan, as recommended in the existing guidance.12 1
• Promoting more inclusive community engagement such as charrettes informing SPZs.
• Removing the requirement for a Public Local Inquiry to be held at the end of the process of preparing a SPZ.
• Removing the blanket restriction for SPZs in conservation areas.
• Accompanying SPZs by a commitment to ensure that other consents supporting development will be managed by the planning authority drawing on the success of the planning protocol supporting Enterprise Areas.
• Including SPZs in the plan delivery programme.
• Examining the interface between plan and project level environmental assessment requirements, and scope for technical guidance to ensure a robust but proportionate approach is taken.
12 Planning and Compensation Act 1991: Simplified Planning Zones, (1995) Circular 18/1995 www.gov.scot/Publications/1995/08/circular-18-1995
The Hillington Park Simplified Planning Zone This award-winning SPZ Scheme was prepared in a partnership between Renfrewshire Council and Glasgow City Council, and MEPC Hillington Park (now Patrizia), who owns and manages the majority of the site. Initiated by the landowner, preliminary studies and a risk assessment were prepared by consultants instructed by the landowner to shape and inform the SPZ scheme. The scheme deals with the planning issues ‘up front’ and confirms what type of development, and how much, is allowed, providing greater certainty for developers and stakeholders. It removes the need for repetitive planning applications, covering the same range of planning issues, which will save time and cost for the existing organisations and new businesses looking to invest in the park. It also benefits the planning authorities by reducing the resources needed to manage development in this dynamic area.11
11 www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/11/4983/10 www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article/2480/Hillington-Park-Simplified-Planning-Zone
Page 96 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 35
Proposal 13: Embedding an infrastructure 3.32____Our view is that this is not the right time first approach to create a new, additional infrastructure agency at a national level. This would take time to establish, 3.29____Good quality places have to function properly, would need significant extra resourcing and, rather and infrastructure plays a critical role in supporting than bringing them closer together, may further this. Infrastructure can have a significant effect on distance infrastructure planning from spatial planning. the quality of a place, with new construction offering We recognise, however, that all infrastructure wider opportunities for improvements. We want providers should be behind our shared commitment infrastructure to help us build places that function to sustainable growth and development. properly so people have choices about how they move around, can access the facilities they need, and 3.33____Instead, to support our commitment can live sustainable and healthy lives. Infrastructure to delivering 50,000 affordable homes this planning, like housing development, should be Parliamentary term and to address failings in the recognised as key part of place making. delivery of market housing, we propose establishing a national infrastructure and development delivery 3.30____We agree with the independent panel that group, comprising appropriate representation from infrastructure is the most significant challenge for the Scottish Government and its agencies, public planning at this time. It also presents a significant and private sector infrastructure providers and opportunity to support the delivery of the homes the Scottish Futures Trust. The group would: that we need. An infrastructure first approach to development should ensure that existing • Ensure that knowledge about the key areas for infrastructure capacity is properly understood, growth and future development, as set out in the can help to identify where additional investment National Planning Framework (NPF) and local should be prioritised to enable future development, development plans, is used to help prioritise and can be achieved where delivery is co-ordinated. our future infrastructure spending as reflected Better infrastructure planning can help to achieve in the Infrastructure Investment Plan. efficiencies, build in long-term resilience and support innovation. We need to ensure that we understand • Work with local government and the development and make best use of our existing capacity industry to broker solutions and support delivery and make improvements to meet the needs at key housing sites across Scotland. of future generations. • In the first instance, contribute to developing more National level co-ordination detailed proposals for an infrastructure levy. 3.31____The independent panel proposed that a national infrastructure agency or working group be • Consider how developer contributions could work set up to better co-ordinate infrastructure delivery. with wider funding and finance solutions, including An enhanced National Planning Framework (NPF), city deals, to secure investment that fully supports which informs and is informed by, the Infrastructure regional priorities for growth. Investment Plan, could play a key role in helping to prioritise future infrastructure spend. • Encourage better co-ordination of development plan strategies and infrastructure capital investment plans and programmes. It is also essential that development plans better understand and reflect on infrastructure investment priorities in order to achieve an infrastructure first approach. The group could oversee and consider regional infrastructure audits, prepared by regional partnerships.
Page 97 36 Places, people and planning
3.34____This group would not need additional 3.37____We have considered the independent panel’s legislation to become established or deliver recommendation that infrastructure providers on the duties set out above. are given duties to support proposals set out in the development plan. While we agree with this Regional partnerships in principle, we recognise that different corporate 3.35____Stronger co-ordination in infrastructure structures exist across the various infrastructure planning and investment at a regional scale is providers. A general duty could be introduced, but particularly relevant to planning and delivering it would have little value if it cannot be clearly development. We agree with the independent panel defined or if compliance with the duty is difficult that co-ordination should be significantly improved to demonstrate or enforce. In addition, scope for at this level. As set out in section 1, our proposals aim such a duty to be imposed on some infrastructure to ensure that planning is better placed to respond to providers will be limited by matters reserved to the the partnerships at the regional level that are already, UK Government. and will continue to, emerge and develop. 3.38____Improved communication and co-ordination is 3.36____Our proposals to replace strategic needed to strengthen awareness of, and commitment development plans with regional partnership to, development plan delivery. In return, development working would empower planners to advise plans must provide the clarity and certainty that on spatial priorities for infrastructure investment. is needed to support the case for investment in At this scale, the infrastructure first approach would infrastructure. We will work with the key agencies be supported where partnerships provide fuller and wider infrastructure providers, including those and more reliable evidence for strategic decisions relating to digital and telecommunications and the about investment. This could be achieved by energy networks, to see how we can achieve a a regional audit of infrastructure capacity which greater level of commitment to development plans. brings together, for example transport, schools, healthcare facilities, water, flooding, drainage, sewerage, energy, telecommunications, digital and green networks. The Strategic Transport Projects Review, carried out by Transport Scotland, should also work alongside spatial planning to form an essential part of strategic investment planning at both the regional and national scale.
Dundee Waterfront – Regeneration – Infrastructure and Placemaking This £1 billion transformation over 30 years comprises of 240 hectares split into five focused zones, and aims to enhance physical, economic and cultural assets. Led by infrastructure, the Central Waterfront zone has created ready-made development sites. Dated infrastructure and buildings have been removed to make way for a newly formed grid iron street pattern mixed-use extension to the city centre, which provides plots ready for development. These sites have been promoted in brochures showing the plot sizes and dates for site availability, whilst design and planning guidance is provided for developers, making the city investor ready. Beyond this, connecting the city with the River Tay, providing open space and other cultural assets means that this infrastructure first approach is carried out with placemaking at its heart.
Page 98 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 37
Proposal 14: Creating a fairer and more transparent would help to build a more confident, infrastructure approach to funding infrastructure first approach to planning and development. 3.39____Planning and development already 3.43____We have considered past measures to capture contributes significantly to funding any required land value uplift and the experience of implementing expansion in infrastructure that is needed to deal the Community Infrastructure Levy in England and with the effects of development. We agree with Wales. We have also considered how a new charge the independent panel that existing arrangements mechanism could be developed which takes into focusing on the use of Section 75 planning obligations account market differences across the country as need to be reconsidered, taking into account the this will affect the viability of securing or recouping delay and uncertainty associated with current infrastructure costs. arrangements. We will consider changes to clarify the scope of current provisions in Section 75. 3.44____Whilst the detailed design of such a mechanism will be challenging, we believe a solution 3.40____Current legislation allows those who enter can be found which strikes the right balance between into planning obligations to apply to modify or simplicity and ability to respond to varying market discharge the agreement, regardless of how recently circumstances. We propose that the Planning Bill these have been entered into and how fundamental includes an enabling power to introduce a new these have been to supporting development delivery. infrastructure levy for Scotland. Whilst we would We have seen increasing uncertainty about whether develop and consult on more detailed proposals for commitments to providing infrastructure will come this levy at a later stage, we propose that it should forward in the longer term. We propose restricting be based on the following key principles: the ability to modify and discharge terms of planning obligations introduced by the 2006 Planning Act so • It should be applied to most development types, that commitments made when planning permission with some potential exemptions. is granted are respected by those who entered into the obligation or who acquire the land. • Permission to adopt and put in place a charging mechanism is granted by Ministers based on the 3.41____In addition, in the coming year we will carry submission of a business case prepared by the out an intensive and closely targeted improvement planning authority/authorities. project involving a small number of authorities to improve timescales for concluding Section 75 • The income from the charge should be collected obligations. This will build on earlier work which locally. developed the 10 good practice principles111213, and will develop, test, measure and put in place changes • The fund will not replace national level which reduce the timescales for planning obligations. infrastructure investment, as defined in the The aim is to share lessons learned more widely Infrastructure Investment Plan and National across the country. Planning Framework (NPF).
Infrastructure levy • The fund will not replace site specific contributions 3.42____Improvements to practice in Section 75 which are needed to mitigate the impacts of obligations will not fully close a gap in infrastructure individual developments not covered by the levy funding which has emerged following the 2008 and secured through Section 75 planning obligations recession and the steep decline of housing or other methods. delivery that arose at that time. In addition, it will not tackle challenges in securing collective contributions for strategic infrastructure. Following the recommendations of the independent panel, we commissioned research into a new development charging mechanism for Scotland. This could help to deliver strategic infrastructure that is needed to support development across a wider area and
13 www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-Environment/planning/Roles/Scottish-Government/ Reform-Projects/Planning Page 99 38 Places, people and planning
Proposal 15: Innovative infrastructure planning 3.49____The forthcoming consultations on the draft Energy Strategy will raise opportunities to plan 3.45____We are exploring wider opportunities strategically in locating new low carbon energy for innovative infrastructure planning. infrastructure and to target a roll out of energy 3.46____An expert group involving all relevant parts efficiency measures. These will need to be considered of the Scottish Government, Heads of Planning by planning in the context of an infrastructure first Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education approach to development. and the Scottish Futures Trust has been established. 3.50____Section 72 of the Climate Change Act (2009) The group has considered the issues around funding introduced a specific requirement for development and delivering new schools and is discussing how we plan policies to require new developments to can best address this in planning as well as in local install and operate low and zero-carbon generating authorities more widely. The work of this group will technologies. An independent study recently found inform the need for future guidance as well as the no evidence that there is any added value from more detailed proposals for an infrastructure levy this requirement – instead, building standards are as work progresses in the coming year. driving down emissions. Whilst planning needs to be 3.47____Land use and transport planning should firmly committed to the principles of climate change be integrated to ensure that their impact on mitigation and adaptation, this review provides an connectedness, accessibility, and ‘active travel’ opportunity to streamline procedures that have not (walking and cycling) are brought together and demonstrated added value and focus on where we used to improve quality of place. Transport Scotland can most benefit action on climate change, key to has begun a review of the National Transport this being the location of development. We are Strategy which will inform the next Strategic therefore seeking views on whether to retain the Transport Projects Review and will consider transport current legislative requirements for these technology governance, including the role of regional transport centred policies, or remove them. partnerships, as part of this. This should reflect 3.51____We are liaising closely with the Scottish the proposals for change set out here. In addition, Government Digital Directorate to ensure that any we have confirmed that a review of the Strategic proposals for change support wider government Transport Projects Review will be closely aligned with ambitions on digital connectivity (broadband and the review of National Planning Framework (NPF) 3. mobile coverage). Opportunities include extending 3.48____Green infrastructure also has a critical role permitted development rights and continuing to to play in supporting quality of life and sustaining provide strong planning policy support for the the environment. The links between planning, place, development of infrastructure networks. environmental quality and health are very clear. Research, including work by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health underlines the importance of access to good quality greenspace and wider quality of place in helping to address inequalities and overcome longstanding patterns of poor health and vulnerability. This is a key aspect of the place standard and a priority for planning future development and regeneration. Green infrastructure also provides economic benefits, for example estimates value the benefits of the Central Scotland Green Network national development at around £6 billion over the 35 years to 2050. This should continue to be a key placemaking priority within development planning.
Page 100 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 39
BUILDING MORE HOMES AND DELIVERING INFRASTRUCTURE – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
KEY QUESTION
C: Will these proposals help to deliver more homes and the infrastructure we need? Please explain your answer.
Optional technical questions 17. Do you agree with the proposed improvements to defining how much housing land should be allocated in the development plan?
18. Should there be a requirement to provide evidence on the viability of major housing developments as part of information required to validate a planning application?
19. Do you agree that planning can help to diversify the ways we deliver homes? 19(a) What practical tools can be used to achieve this?
20. What are your views on greater use of zoning to support housing delivery? 20(a) How can the procedures for Simplified Planning Zones be improved to allow for their wider use in Scotland? 20(b) What needs to be done to help resource them?
21. Do you agree that rather than introducing a new infrastructure agency, improved national co-ordination of development and infrastructure delivery in the shorter term would be more effective?
22. Would the proposed arrangements for regional partnership working support better infrastructure planning and delivery? 22(a) What actions or duties at this scale would help?
23. Should the ability to modify or discharge Section 75 planning obligations (Section 75A) be restricted?
24. Do you agree that future legislation should include new powers for an infrastructure levy? If so, 24(a) at what scale should it be applied? 24(b) to what type of development should it apply? 24(c) who should be responsible for administering it? 24(d) what type of infrastructure should it be used for? 24(e) If not, please explain why.
25. Do you agree that Section 3F of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as introduced by Section 72 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, should be removed?
Page 101 40 Places, people and planning
STRONGER LEADERSHIP AND SMARTER 04 RESOURCING
We want to reduce bureaucracy and improve resources so Scotland’s planning system can focus on creating great places.
Proposal 16 Developing skills to deliver outcomes
Proposal 17 Investing in a better service
Proposal 18 A new approach to improving performance
Proposal 19 Making better use of resources – efficient decision making
Proposal 20 Innovation, designing for the future and the digital transformation of the planning service
Page 102 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 41
4.1____Planners can help to make great places and 4.4____We will continue to work with Heads of we see strong examples of this across the country. Planning Scotland (HoPS) and the Royal Town However, good quality development and efficient Planning Institute (RTPI) Scotland to look at how service needs to be the norm. We want planning to planning can improve its reputation as a visionary re-establish itself as a visionary profession, rather profession that creates great places for people. than the micro-management of the built environment Leadership is central to this. Planning needs to better the panel referred to. We need to avoid planning articulate the value that it can contribute to society activities that do not add value. Now, more than and the economy and should do more to highlight ever, we must focus properly on how cost effective its achievements. The proposals we have outlined the planning service is, and ensure that future to improve community involvement and better changes make processes simpler and more efficient align spatial and community planning are intended wherever possible. to support this.
4.2____We now have an exceptional opportunity 4.5____Education is key to this and our proposals to redesign the planning service to better reflect for involving children and young people will help the principles of public service reform. People, to build greater awareness and involvement in place partnership, prevention, performance and place making. We also agree with the independent panel have formed the foundations for the proposals that planning graduates have a vital role to play. for change we have set out here. Many of the wider It is critical that we make future generations of changes aim to remove unnecessary procedures, planners resilient and adaptable to change, and and ‘rebalance’ the system so that we can focus give them the confidence to challenge and inspire on achieving outcomes through direct intervention, others. An understanding of the different cultures creativity and imagination. and sectors will help with this. We have asked the RTPI Scotland to look into opportunities Proposal 16: Developing for a graduate intern scheme. skills to deliver outcomes 4.6____The capacity and resilience of the planning 4.3____Planning can be recognised as a positive profession in Scotland as a whole needs to be force for change. Like any public service it will be considered in view of the recommendations set out measured by what it delivers. Those outcomes must here. The independent panel recommended further be the focus for all those involved in planning. By work on skills development and shared services. gaining a wider, place-based perspective, the valuable role that planning plays in ensuring that the public good is considered in decisions about the future of our places will be better understood and valued. Planning can provide a long-term perspective, and is therefore particularly well placed to tackle important issues such as development delivery, health, inclusion, environmental quality and climate change.
Page 103 42 Places, people and planning
4.7____We have asked the RTPI Scotland to undertake 4.9____It is also essential that the planning an audit of skills, and Heads of Planning Scotland to profession looks to other built environment explore options for shared services. Given the many professionals. The profession should continue to long established relationships between planners in work with the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and across the public and private sectors, we believe Scotland, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors we can greatly improve the way we exchange (RICS), Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland knowledge, skills and experience. However we (RIAS), Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), the recognise that there may be a significant need for Chartered Institute of Housing and others to lead further training. The immediate priorities include: collaborative approaches to improving places and leadership; project management; mediation and delivering development. brokerage; development finance and economics; viability; costing and funding solutions; working with communities; and creativity and innovation. The emphasis is on efficiency. Not every authority can be expected to have skills in every area. However, there is a need to ensure that they have access to specialist skills when necessary.
4.8____There are some challenges – mainly resources. However, much can be done to help authorities to help one another. This willingness to work together needs to be carefully balanced with the pressures on planners. Time away from desks to either assist others or improve personal skills is not always possible in the current climate. This needs to be addressed, and we look forward to seeing the results of the RTPI and Heads of Planning Scotland’s work on skills and shared services.
Royal Town Planning Institute – Future Planners Initiative This initiative aims to reach out to young people aged 11-18 to raise awareness of and foster their interest in planning. Volunteer RTPI Ambassadors have been appointed to visit schools and discuss the importance of planning. This gives planners an opportunity to help develop a wider understanding of how the built environment affects everyone’s lives. More than 100 Ambassadors have been participating in the initiative, visiting schools throughout the UK and Ireland. A short film ‘How do we plan our world?’ was also developed and posted online to support school visits.
Page 104 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 43
Proposal 17: Investing in a better service 4.14____We will therefore bring forward further proposals for changes to current resourcing 4.10____The planning service must have the resources arrangements which are more flexible and will ensure it needs to deliver the world-class service our that the costs to applicants are more closely aligned communities deserve and our economy needs. with the service provided. At this stage, we believe 4.11____Consultation on proposals to increase in the consultation should include proposals for: the overall cap in planning fees for most types of • A revised maximum fee. development is ongoing.14 We have been cautious about increasing fees, conscious of the need to align • Higher fees for retrospective planning applications resourcing with performance improvement. It is and for applications relating to sites not supported critical that we continue to ensure that Scotland is by the adopted local development plan an attractive place to do business. However, we are (as described in section 1). aware that the maximum planning fee in Scotland is currently less than 10% of that in England, Wales • Charging for appeals and reviews of decisions and Northern Ireland and that the overall cost (see section 2). of processing planning applications in planning authorities is not currently covered by the application • Agencies, who have a critical role to play in the fee for most categories of development. This is not development management process, having the a sustainable approach to resourcing a system that ability to charge for services. needs to be focused on quality and efficiency. • Discretionary charging, including for pre-application 4.12____Development management is currently discussions. subsidised by other local authority service areas. Other organisations, including agencies and the • Discretionary charging for establishing Simplified Government’s planning functions, are not funded Planning Zones (see section 3). under current arrangements but help to support the effectiveness of the service. • Removing the developer’s right to submit a revised or repeat application at no cost (see section 2). 4.13____In light of our proposed reforms, now is the time to have a wider discussion on resourcing our • Removing provisions for recovering advertising planning system. We should be prepared to move costs and including these within a revised planning towards full cost recovery that extends beyond the fee. day-to-day business of processing applications in development management teams and into wider • Arrangements for funding of relevant central areas. Pre-application discussion, statutory consultees, government functions such as front line service central government support from brokerage to delivery in the eDevelopment programme and ePlanning and subsequent approvals of matters other elements supporting operation of the planning such as planning conditions can all contribute service in Scotland provided by the Planning and to creating investor confidence. This is not simply Architecture Division. about increasing revenue. The performance of our planning system needs to be at the centre of any • Improving clarity and ensuring the fees structure is changes we make. proportionate and reflects the types of development coming forward, for example by providing a fixed rate fee for polytunnels.
• Enhanced service standards or fast tracked applications where a higher fee is paid and accompanied by a processing agreement.
14 https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/planning-architecture/consultation-on-raising- planning-fees Page 105 44 Places, people and planning
4.15____Our aim would be to fully recover the costs of • Identifying a national performance co-ordinator a high performing development management process, who champions improvement across all planning and those other parts of public services that directly authorities and leads the sharing of expertise support it. and experience.
4.16____In recognition of the diversity of the planning 4.20____Given that planning should be measured service across Scotland, we will look at the extent by its outcomes, we will also explore the scope for to which authorities can opt out of charging fees measuring performance on the basis of the quality where they believe this will support wider objectives, of places. To some extent, this is achieved by the such as regeneration and reversing depopulation of Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning and the remote island and rural areas. We should not look at a RTPI’s annual Awards for Planning Excellence. Wider planning application as an opportunity to extract gain work to promote the role of the planning profession – these proposals are designed to meet processing could be supported if we can show the level, type costs, helping Scotland to be the best place to deliver and quality of change which has been achieved. This the planning service and to do business. would not only demonstrate success but also help to identify priorities for future action. We could achieve Proposal 18: A new approach this, for example where the Place Standard is used to improving performance to evaluate places ‘before and after’ development, 4.17____Higher fees must be accompanied by a and communities could also play a role by giving much improved service. Whilst planning authorities’ feedback. We will commission research to explore performance has improved in recent years, we fully the scope to develop a practical plan to achieve this. understand the concerns of the development industry 4.21____Our proposals to increase resourcing that fee increases need to be accompanied by strong must be accompanied by a stronger assurance performance in every authority. We agree with the that performance will improve to a high standard independent panel that monitoring is important and in every authority. Whilst we have no current plans that we need to provide better support for authorities to implement the penalty clause in the Regulatory to help them improve and learn from each other. Reform Act, we have no plans to remove it. We 4.18____We already have a High Level Group to believe it remains essential to have this option support improving performance and will continue to in place as an assurance that action can be taken pursue delivery of an improved performance agenda. where it is demonstrated that performance is consistently poor and actions are not being taken 4.19____It is the planning authorities’ responsibility to improve. However, we strongly favour a more to improve their own performance and they have positive supportive approach, rather than a sanction, made significant progress since the introduction and we very much recognise the impact that of their Planning Performance Framework (PPF). applicant behaviour can have on planning authority It is also important that all parties play their part performance. We are committed to continuing our in supporting the planning service through early work with the High Level Group on performance engagement, provision of appropriate supporting to ensure we provide a supportive and fair information and striving to meet timescales. improvement agenda. We think the time is right to improve the PPF monitoring system and suggest that Heads of Planning Scotland lead further consideration of the following improvements:
• A stronger focus on customers’ experience of the planning service within service improvement plans.
• ‘360 degree’ feedback from service users for all authorities in Scotland.
• Continued support from the Improvement Service.
• Improved peer review. Page 106 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 45
Proposal 19: Making better use of resources: 4.25____As recommended by the independent panel, efficient decision making we will commission research on aligning consents procedures. Based on advice from stakeholders, 4.22____We want to simplify, streamline and clarify this work will particularly focus on scope to bring procedures so that planners can focus on activities together the handling of applications which are that add most value. administered by local authorities and will make Permitted development rights recommendations which read across to the work of the digital task force. Effective brokerage of 4.23____Heads of Planning Scotland are looking applications, such as the arrangements we introduced at the scope to extend permitted development to support Enterprise Areas, can also have significant rights and remove the need to apply for planning benefits for applicants and the Programme for permission for more development types. This could Government confirms our commitment to develop also be supported by making changes to the Use this further. Classes Order. At this stage, the types of development where we think there is scope to remove certain Procedural improvements – development applications from the system are: management
• Digital telecommunications infrastructure. 4.26____More generally, we would welcome views on whether targeted improvements can be made • Development which helps to meet our wider to further streamline development management commitment to reducing emissions that cause procedures as a whole. climate change. These could be wide-ranging and include different types of microgeneration 4.27____In particular, we believe there is scope equipment; installations supporting renewable heat to simplify and clarify procedures for approving networks; cycle networks, parking and storage; and the detail of proposals that are granted planning facilities to support low carbon and electric vehicles. permission in principle. To provide greater flexibility, we would welcome views on whether a new • Development which supports the resilience provision should be introduced to amend the of the farming sector. This includes polytunnels duration of a planning permission in principle, after and changes of use from agricultural buildings permission has been granted. Annex H of Circular to housing. 3/201315 sets out current procedures on this.
• Allotments and community growing schemes. 4.28____We would also like to hear views on whether there is scope to make requirements for • Changes to the use of premises within town centres pre-determination hearings and determination to stimulate vitality. of applications by ‘full council’ more flexible. For example, pre-determination hearings could • Elements of development within the aquaculture be required for proposals which do not need a sector decision by full council, and we could allow planning authorities to choose whether pre-determination Handling applications hearings should be in front of a committee 4.24____Where an application for planning permission or the full council. is required, we agree with the independent panel that a more consistent approach to setting requirements for the validation of planning applications should help to overcome some of the delays and time spent on casework. Recent work undertaken by Heads of Planning Scotland, in collaboration with industry, will provide fuller guidance on this that can be used by all planning authorities, applicants and key agencies. In addition, we will strengthen planning advice to clarify the grounds upon which an application can be refused where the applicant has not provided the information required to reach a decision. Page 15107 www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00485277.pdf 46 Places, people and planning
Proposal 20: Innovation, designing for the future and 4.31____We will appoint a digital task force to the digital transformation of the planning service look at opportunities to develop and integrate new information technology solutions in support 4.29____There are many benefits to be gained from of the continued digital transformation and digitally enabling transformation of our public improvement of the planning service. We expect services. We have already achieved much through the task force will explore a range of opportunities, the success of our eDevelopment programme over including data sharing, mobile technology, the use the past decade. It has led to the use of online of drones, and expanding online applications to applications and redesigning business practices wider development-related consenting regimes. around the user needs. However, in planning we are only now coming into line with the minimum capability of current and developing technology, and have yet to realise the full potential of the fast-moving information age.
4.30____As an example, we recently commissioned research on the potential of three-dimensional visualisations in planning. This is just one way in which technology might transform the way people become involved with, appreciate and get excited about the future of their places. We will continue to explore and promote new visualisation technology by taking forward the research recommendations in a new programme of work.
eDevelopment.scot is a business transformation programme, delivering digital planning and building standards services across Scotland. We have developed online application portals to support and enable the modernisation of these services. The planning and building standards application services have historically involved large volumes of paper documents and large-scale plans and architectural drawings. These days, most documents and plans supporting development-related applications are routinely created digitally. Now they can be submitted digitally too, which is much more convenient and cheaper for customers. The end result is less paper to handle, postage and the removal of all unnecessary practices and associated excess costs, radically changing public service processes to fit. Electronic delivery also saves time, with days being cut every time correspondence or documents transfer between applicant and authority. The eDevelopment services deliver what the customer wants – open, accessible online services, available 24/7.
Page 108 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 47
STRONGER LEADERSHIP AND SMARTER RESOURCING – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS:
KEY QUESTION
D: Do you agree the measures set out here will improve the way that the planning service is resourced? Please explain your answer.
Optional technical questions 26. What measures can we take to improve leadership of the Scottish planning profession?
27. What are the priorities for developing skills in the planning profession?
28. Are there ways in which we can support stronger multidisciplinary working between built environment professions?
29. How can we better support planning authorities to improve their performance as well as the performance of others involved in the process?
30. Do you agree that we should focus more on monitoring outcomes from planning (e.g. how places have changed)? 30(a) Do you have any ideas on how this could be achieved?
31. Do you have any comments on our early proposals for restructuring of planning fees?
32. What types of development would be suitable for extended permitted development rights?
33. What targeted improvements should be made to further simplify and clarify development management procedures? 33(a) Should we make provisions on the duration of planning permission in principle more flexible by introducing powers to amend the duration after permission has been granted? How can existing provisions be simplified? 33(b) Currently developers can apply for a new planning permission with different conditions to those attached to an existing permission for the same development. Can these procedures be improved? 33(c) What changes, if any, would you like to see to arrangements for public consultation of applications for approvals of detail required by a condition on a planning permission in principle? 33(d) Do you have any views on the requirements for pre-determination hearings and determination of applications by full council?
34. What scope is there for digitally enabling the transformation of the planning service around the user need?
Page 109 48 Places, people and planning
NEXT STEPS
We are committed to taking forward a positive and A Business Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) ambitious programme of planning reform over the will allow us to assess the likely financial costs and coming months. Some of our proposals for change benefits and the associated risks of the proposals will be achieved through a Planning Bill and related that might have an impact on the public, private secondary legislation, but there also is much that or third sector. can be achieved ahead of these changes. A Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Assessment Alongside consultation on the proposals set out here, (CRWIA) will allow us to assess whether the proposals in 2017 we will continue to take forward research will advance the realisation of children’s rights that will help to support future changes to the in Scotland and protect and promote the wellbeing system. We will also set up and develop the work of of children and young people. the digital task force and reconvene the six working groups who have helped us to develop this paper to You can find our partial impact assessments at: explore the emerging proposals further. https://beta.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/ reforming-planning-system/ We are keen to ensure that our national planning policies remain up to date and relevant to the wider In mid-2017 we will also provide an update on planning system. We will therefore publish the the outcome from this consultation, the analysis National Planning Framework (NPF) 3 Monitoring of consultation and a summary of the proposed Report later in 2017, and thereafter consider the legislative changes. Alongside this, we will publish timing of NPF 4 and revision of Scottish Planning a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Policy (SPP). Environmental Report. Views will be invited at this stage, in line with the requirements of the Additional consultations Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. We will also update the BRIA and EqIA at this time. We recognise that the proposals set out here remain at an early stage, and that in some cases there will Testing the proposals – research, pilots and exemplars be benefit from more detailed consultation on more detailed changes. In the coming year we will therefore Several key changes to the planning system consult further on: would benefit from further testing and practical consideration, not least the proposals that aim • More detailed proposals for enhanced fees to improve development delivery. During 2017: and discretionary charging, taking into account emerging proposals. • We will commission further research to inform proposals for local place plans, alignment of • Extended permitted development rights, informed consents and monitoring of the outcomes by the ongoing work of Heads of Planning Scotland. from the planning system.
Impact assessments • We will pilot Simplified Planning Zones. We have identified a number of early projects to explore We are considering the impact of implementing a zoned approach to housing through early SPZs. our proposals. We will continue to encourage involvement in this An Equalities Impact Assessment (EQIA) will help programme over the coming months. us understand policy impacts on people because • We will work with the Directorate for Planning of their age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and Environmental Appeals to explore proposals, and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, including for an early gatecheck to support the race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. development plan examination. This will allow us to identify (and mitigate) negative impacts and proactively look for opportunities • We will further explore the ways in which we can to promote equality. significantly strengthen development plan action programmes. We will invite the Scottish Futures Trust to work with planning authorities to explore Page 110 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 49
the extent to which proposals can be more fully NEXT STEPS – CONSULTATION QUESTIONS specified, costed and linked with sources of finance. Optional technical questions • We will design our 2017-18 charrette programme to reflect the opportunities for place planning and 35. Do you think any of the proposals set out in wider involvement outlined in section 2. this consultation will have an impact, positive or negative, on equalities as set out above? We would like to hear from any planning authorities, If so, what impact do you think that will be? developers or communities, including community councils, who wish to work with us to explore how 36. What implications (including potential costs) the proposals set out here could work in practice. will there be for business and public sector Please contact [email protected] delivery organisations from these proposals?
Culture change, skills and performance 37. Do you think any of these proposals will have an impact, positive or negative, on children’s Many of the changes will depend on continuing rights? If so, what impact do you think that efforts to change the way the planning profession will be? goes about doing its business on a day-to-day basis. We believe there is a need for culture change in the 38. Do you have any early views on whether profession, on the part of professionals in the public these proposals will generate significant and private sectors alike. We will therefore work with environmental effects? Please explain Heads of Planning Scotland, COSLA, the Improvement your answer. Service and the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland to:
• Design and launch a graduate intern scheme.
• Establish a skills database.
• Design a training programme for the planning profession in Scotland, focusing on, but also extending beyond, planning authorities to include the development sector, communities and key agencies.
• Identify priorities for shared services.
• Revise the guidance on Planning Performance Frameworks.
Getting involved Views are now invited on the proposals set out in this consultation paper. Respondents are asked to focus on the questions provided for each of the four areas of change.
Responses to the consultation should be submitted to Planning and Architecture Division of the Scottish Government by 5pm on Tuesday 4 April 2017.
Page 111 50 Places, people and planning
RESPONDING TO THIS CONSULTATION
We are inviting responses to this consultation Next steps in the process by 4th April 2017 Where respondents have given permission for their response to be made public, and after we have Please respond to this consultation using the Scottish checked that they contain no potentially defamatory Government’s consultation platform, Citizen Space. material, responses will be made available to the You can view and respond to this consultation public at http://consult.scotland.gov.uk. If you use online at https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/planning- Citizen Space to respond, you will receive a copy architecture/a-consultation-on-the-future-of-planning. of your response via email. You can save and return to your responses while the consultation is still open. Please ensure that Following the closing date, all responses will be consultation responses are submitted before the analysed and considered along with any other closing date of 4th April 2017 available evidence to help us. Responses will be published where we have been given permission If you are unable to respond online, please complete to do so. the Respondent Information Form (see “Handling your Response” below) to: Comments and complaints [email protected] or If you have any comments about how this consultation exercise has been conducted, Planning and Architecture Division please send them to: The Scottish Government [email protected] or 2-H South Victoria Quay Planning and Architecture Division Edinburgh The Scottish Government EH6 6QQ 2-H South Victoria Quay Handling your response Edinburgh If you respond using Citizen Space (http://consult. EH6 6QQ scotland.gov.uk/), you will be directed to the Respondent Information Form. Please indicate Scottish Government consultation process how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular, whether you are happy for your Consultation is an essential part of the policy-making response to published. process. It gives us the opportunity to consider your opinion and expertise on a proposed area of work. If you are unable to respond via Citizen Space, please complete and return the Respondent You can find all our consultations online: Information Form which can be accessed at http://consult.scotland.gov.uk. Each consultation https://beta.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/ details the issues under consideration, as well as reforming-planning-system/. If you ask for your a way for you to give us your views, either online, response not to be published, we will regard it by email or by post. as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly. Consultations may involve seeking views in a number All respondents should be aware that the Scottish of different ways, such as public meetings, focus Government is subject to the provisions of the groups, or other online methods such as Dialogue Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and (https://www.ideas.gov.scot) would therefore have to consider any request made to it under the Act for information relating to responses made to this consultation exercise.
Page 112 A consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system 51
Responses will be analysed and used as part of the decision making process, along with a range of other available information and evidence. We will publish a report of this analysis for every consultation. Depending on the nature of the consultation exercise the responses received may:
• indicate the need for policy development or review
• inform the development of a particular policy
• help decisions to be made between alternative policy proposals
• be used to finalise legislation before it is implemented
While details of particular circumstances described in a response to a consultation exercise may usefully inform the policy process, consultation exercises cannot address individual concerns and comments, which should be directed to the relevant public body.
Page 113 © Crown copyright 2017
ISBN: 978-1-78652-736-3
This document is also available on The Scottish Government website: www.gov.scot
Produced for The Scottish Government by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA PPDAS85938 (01/17)
www.gov.scotPage 114 Agenda Item 10
SESTRAN – MOVE TOWARDS A MODEL 3 TRANSPORT PARTNERSHIP
Report by Service Director Regulatory Services
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
30 March 2017
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
1.1 This report highlights a consultation exercise being undertaken by SEStran in relation to a potential transfer of functions to the regional transport partnership
1.2 The South East of Scotland Transport Partnership (SEStran) is a statutory partnership consisting of eight local authorities, namely: City of Edinburgh, Fife, East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian, Falkirk, Clackmannanshire and Scottish Borders.
1.3 SEStran is currently classed as a “Model 1” Regional Transport Partnership (RTP) which means that the primary function of the partnership is the production of a Regional Transport Strategy.
1.4 At a meeting on 2 December 2016, the SEStran Board agreed to undertake a consultation with all constituent local authorities with a view to moving towards a “Model 3” Regional Transport Partnership.
1.5 A Model 3 Regional Transport Partnership has additional powers, specifically in relation to public transport, but also could be utilised in terms of potentially managing other services such as ferry services, tolled bridges road pricing, road maintenance and road safety.
1.6 There have been discussions on the inclusion of a “Model 3” Regional Transport Authority proposal within the City Deal process. However, the suggestion is not being actively pursued as part of the City Deal at this particular time.
1.7 SEStran initially required a response from all constituent Local Authorities which could be discussed at the next SEStran Board Meeting on 3 March 2017. However SEStran has now decided to delay formal consideration of the proposal.
Page 115 Scottish Borders Council - 30 March 2017 2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 It is recommended that Scottish Borders Council:
(a) Agrees that there is insufficient information to allow members to make a decision on whether Scottish Borders Council should be part of a SEStran “Model 3” Regional Transport Authority at the current time.
(b) Authorises the Service Director Regulatory Services to respond to SEStran to that effect.
Page 116 Scottish Borders Council - 30 March 2017 3 BACKGROUND
3.1 Regional Transport Partnerships were created by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. The Act set up RTPs as “Model 1” authorities where the key statutory function is the development of a Regional Transport Strategy. However, the act also allowed the RTPs to gain additional powers and move to a “Model 2” authority (Additional powers based on the requirements of the Regional Transport Strategy, decided by the constituent authorities) or a “Model 3” authority following agreement by the constituent local authorities.
3.2 There are currently seven RTPs in Scotland with four of the partnerships operating as “Model 1” authorities (including SEStran) and three as “Model 3” authorities (including Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and Dumfries and Galloway Council).
The four Scottish “Model 1” partnerships are:
SEStran; Tayside and Central Scotland Transport Partnership (Tactran); North East of Scotland Transport Partnership (Nestrans); and Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership (Hitrans).
The three Scottish “Model 3” partnerships are:
Shetland Transport Partnership (ZetTrans); South West of Scotland Transport Partnership (SWestrans); and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT).
3.3 A Model 3 Regional Transport Partnership has additional powers, specifically in relation to the delivery of public transport services, but also could be utilised in terms of potentially managing other services such as the delivery of ferry services, tolled bridges, developing road pricing proposals, road maintenance projects and aspects of road safety and parking enforcement.
3.4 In England the regional transport function is provided by “Combined Authorities” (Previously known as Passenger Transport Executives) which are primarily centred on the old metropolitan areas such as Greater Manchester. These authorities are run by a board consisting of elected Members from their constituent councils. Their role is primarily in the organisation and delivery of passenger transport services, although in the case of Greater Manchester the functions also include regional and local road network functions, the management of traffic signals and other road safety activities.
3.5 Combined Authorities have been heavily involved in the development of the City Deal process in England and have been successful in securing additional funding from Central Government.
Page 117 Scottish Borders Council - 30 March 2017 3.6 In June 2016, the SEStran Board discussed the possibility of moving from a “Model 1” to a “Model 3” RTP. This discussion coincided with the Scottish Government’s proposals for reforming the planning system and the refresh of the National Transport Strategy. There was also an acknowledgement that the City Deal Process could possibly include a “Model 3” proposal although the prospect of a “Model 3” RTP proposal being part of the City Deal process has now significantly decreased.
3.7 At the SEStran Board Meeting in September 2016, the current SEStran structure and governance was discussed. It was agreed that Professor Tom Rye of the Transport Research Institute in Edinburgh be engaged by SEStran to undertake research to help identify the benefits and dis-benefits of SEStran moving towards a “Model 3” authority.
3.8 Professor Rye finalised his research on 24 November 2016 and gave a verbal presentation to the SEStran Board on 2 December 2016. A copy of the research document is provided in Appendix A.
4 CONSULTATION
4.1 The SEStran Partnership Director met with Transport Scotland on 6 October 2016 to seek guidance on the process for a possible transfer of powers from a “Model 1” to a “Model 3” Partnership Authority. Transport Scotland indicated that the procedure to switch was straight forward, with the request consisting of a letter, outlining the proposal for the transfer of powers.
4.2 However, officials also indicated that a two stage consultation process in terms of transferring to a “Model 3” RTP would also be required, with the first stage being direct consultation with each constituent authority and a second stage consisting of a 12 week public consultation on the proposals.
4.3 A letter from SEStran which initiated the first stage of the consultation process was received by Scottish Borders Council on 9 December 2016.
5 CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 The perceived benefits of moving to a “ Model 3” Partnership Authority could include: Working in partnership with private operators to improve bus services through the development of quality partnerships or quality contracts; The planning and development of new transport related infrastructure throughout the partnership area; The development of a strategic transport network, designed to provide access to the key employment areas in the city region; The provision of a centralised fare regime throughout the area which could include multi-operator multi-modal ticketing and positive pricing for certain groups such as the unemployed etc.; The provision of specific services and schemes to help cater for the transportation of people with disabilities and the disadvantaged.
Page 118 Scottish Borders Council - 30 March 2017 5.2 The perceived dis-benefits of moving to a “Model 3” Partnership Authority could include: The centralisation of transport services to a central location within the city region; The potential loss of autonomy for Scottish Borders Council in relation to the allocation of transport related funding within our area; The potential transfer of existing budgets and staff to a centralised location; A concentration on strategic passenger transport routes within the city region to the potential detriment of services in rural areas; The potential of the regional authority to become involved in road related functions such as maintenance and road safety;
6 UPDATE ON PROPOSAL
6.1 At the present time there is a consultation that relates to the Scottish Planning Review which suggests that a closer working relationship between SEStran and SESplan should be developed. Officers believe that this collaboration could be beneficial to regional transport and planning, but does not necessarily need to be connected to a regional transport authority. A consultation response is being prepared by the Chief Planning Officer for submission by 4 April 2017.
6.2 There has been some discussion regarding the inclusion of a “Model 3” Regional Transport Authority proposal within the City Deal project. It is the view of some officers within some authorities that the inclusion of a “Model 3” proposal would be beneficial to the City Deal process. While that view is not shared by all parties this helped prompt this consultation exercise from SEStran.
6.3 It appears from subsequent discussions in relation to the City Deal process that the inclusion of a “Model 3” Regional Transport Partnership has diminished significantly. Following verbal responses from the constituent Local Authorities, SEStran has decided to delay formal consideration of the proposal at the present time.
7 CONCLUSION
7.1 From a review of the available information on the governance of Regional Transport Partnerships it is the view of officers that there are a number of significant implications (as noted in para 5.2) regarding the proposed transfer of SEStran from a “Model 1” to a “Model 3” Regional Transport Authority. These implications have not yet been fully investigated. Therefore our proposed response to this consultation is that there is not enough information provided at this stage to allow members to make an informed decision.
Page 119 Scottish Borders Council - 30 March 2017 8 IMPLICATIONS
8.1 Financial
It is unclear at the present time what the financial implications of transferring to a “Model 3” would include. However, it is anticipated that the public transport budget for Scottish Borders Council would be transferred to a regional transport authority and there is a possibility that other budgets may be required as part of the transfer of responsibilities.
8.2 Risk and Mitigations
(a) There is a significant risk that the financial allocation requested by a regional transport authority would be allocated to the strategic transport network within the city region area to the detriment of more rural areas where there are less strategic routes.
(b) There is also a risk that a regional transport authority could request additional funding in relation to other aspects of transport provision such as road maintenance and road safety.
8.3 Equalities
There are no adverse impacts due to race, disability, gender, age, sexual orientation or religion/belief arising from this report.
8.4 Acting Sustainably
It is uncertain at this stage whether the proposal will have a positive effect on sustainability within the Scottish Borders.
8.5 Carbon Management
It is uncertain at this stage whether the proposal will have a positive effect on carbon management within the Scottish Borders.
8.6 Rural Proofing
It is uncertain at this stage whether the proposal will have a positive effect on the rural environment within the Scottish Borders.
8.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation
No changes to the Scheme of Administration or Delegation are required as a result of this report.
Page 120 Scottish Borders Council - 30 March 2017 9 CONSULTATION
9.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Legal Officer, the Chief Officer Audit and Risk, the Chief Officer HR and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted on the contents of this report and comments incorporated.
9.2 In addition, the Chief Executive, Depute Chief Executive for Place, Corporate Transformation & Services Director, Service Director Neighbourhood Services, Service Director Commercial Services and Service Director Capital Projects have also been consulted on the contents of this report and comments incorporated.
Approved by
Brian Frater Service Director Regulatory Services Signature ……………………………
Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Graeme Johnstone Lead Officer for Access and Transport 01835 825138
Background Papers:
Previous Minute Reference: None
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Jacqueline Whitelaw, Environment and Infrastructure, Scottish Borders Council, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA, Tel 01835 825431, Fax 01835 825071, email [email protected].
Page 121 Scottish Borders Council - 30 March 2017 This page is intentionally left blank 5. Appx 1
Southeast Scotland Transport Partnership
PTA models of organisation for regional transport governance
Report
Project No: 67751 November 16
Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh Napier University, 10 Colinton Rd Edinburgh EH10 5DT [email protected]
Prepared by: TR Verified by: RL Approved by: JG Status: Confidential Issue no: 1 Date: 25/11/16 Directory & File Name: Status: Draft v2 Issue no: 1 Date: 25/11/16 C:\Users\tom\Desktop\tom1\r esearch\SEStran rts\2016\SEStran Governance Report Edinburgh Napier University TRI Nov 2016.docx Directory & File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Tombo\My Documents\proposals\Active travel proposalPage v2.doc 123 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
Table of Contents
1. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ...... 2 1.1 PURPOSE ...... 2 1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE ...... 2 2. DIFFERENT FORMS OF (P)TA ...... 2 2.1 WHAT IS A MODEL 3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT PARTNERSHIP AND HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM WHAT SESTRAN IS NOW? ...... 2 2.2 CAPACITY OF RTPS IN SCOTLAND ...... 4 2.3 GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE OF RTPS ...... 5 2.4 OTHER FORMS OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ...... 5 2.4.1 Passenger Transport Authorities and Executives in England (PTAs and PTEs) ...... 5 Capacity ...... 6 Governance ...... 7 Finance ...... 7 2.4.2 Transport for Greater Manchester ...... 7 2.4.3 Transport for London (TfL) ...... 8 2.4.4 Continental northern European PTAs...... 9 3. CURRENT CHALLENGES AND HOW DIFFERENT PTA MODELS COULD ADDRESS THEM ...... 11 3.1 INTRODUCTION AND CAVEAT ...... 11 3.2 PLANNING AND DELIVERING TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS FOR ALL MODES OF TRANSPORT ACROSS THE REGION ...... 11 3.2.1 Economies of scale in delivery and Resilience ...... 12 3.3 POSITIVE PRICING AND FARES INTEGRATION ...... 13 3.3.1 Positive pricing for certain groups of travellers ...... 14 3.4 IMPROVED CROSS-REGIONAL MOBILITY FOR REGIONAL LABOUR, TRAINING AND EMPLOYABILITY; AND IMPROVED COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY ...... 15 3.5 PROVISION OF TRANSPORT FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND INTERSECTIONALITY ACROSS GROUPS 17 3.6 CONTRIBUTION TO THE HEALTH, EMPLOYABILITY AND WELFARE REFORM AGENDAS – ...... 19 3.7 SUMMARY ...... 20 3.8 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN A MODEL 3 SESTRAN AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS; AND MODEL 3 SESTRAN MEMBERSHIP ...... 22 4. CONCLUSION ...... 23
Page 124 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
1. PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
1.1 Purpose This report has been produced by the Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh Napier University (TRI) on behalf of SEStran. The main purpose is to provide evidence and expert opinion on the benefits and possible disbenefits for the SEStran area in transitioning to a Model 3 Regional Transport Partnership (RTP), as defined under the 2005 Transport (Scotland) Act. In so doing, it describes the various models of passenger transport authority (PTA) that exist in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, and as far as possible based on evidence, discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each model.
1.2 Report structure The report first considers what a Model 3 RTP is, and how this differs from SEStran’s current statutory basis. It then describes the various other forms of (passenger) transport authority that exist in Scotland and England at present, and a generic model from northwestern countries of continental Europe. (The word “passenger” is in parentheses since a limited number of such bodies also have some powers over roads and/or land use planning.) From this it distills six models of (P)TA which are each described in terms of their responsibilities, finances and governance.
The six models are then discussed in relation to a number of challenges faced with regard to transport by the SEStran region at the present time. The purpose of this section is to consider which models are best placed to deal with these challenges, which were outlined in the client’s project specification.
Finally, some specific issues related to the possible make-up of a SEStran Level 3 Partnership are discussed, as is the experience of local authorities in the north east of England that have recently voluntarily moved to a Combined Authority model (effectively, a form of PTA).
2. DIFFERENT FORMS OF (P)TA
2.1 What is a Model 3 Regional Transport Partnership and how does it differ from what SEStran is now? Regional Transport Partnerships were created by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. The RTP elements of this legislation were intended to create an effective regional level of transport governance in Scotland that was perceived by the then government to have been missing since the creation of an entirely unitary district model of transport governance in 1996, and the abolition of the then regional councils. However, rather than move to a single model of regional transport governance, the 2005 Act set up RTPs as “Model 1” partnerships with limited powers; but with the option for Ministers to make orders to turn RTPs into organisations with a wider range of powers ceded from and with the agreement of their constituent local authorities – so called Model 2 and Model 3 partnerships.
2 Page 125 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
The key statutory duty of a Model 1 RTP is to produce a Regional Transport Strategy (RTS). A Model 1 RTP could be granted some powers to run concurrently with local authorities in the region to enable it to implement aspects of the RTS. The example cited in the 2004 Scottish Government consultation paper on RTPs was where the RTP might take powers to implement bus priority measures as part of regional Quality Bus Corridors, but the local authorities also retain road maintenance powers for those same corridors. In the case of SEStran and other Model 1 RTPs, however, they have to date taken on no additional powers or functions that run concurrently with those of their constituent local authorities.
In the 2005 Transport (Scotland) Act the additional functional (as opposed to administrative) duties and powers of a Model 1 RTP are listed as follows:
• Acquiring and disposing of land, including by compulsory purchase, where this is required for the discharge of its duties; • Promoting or opposing private legislation; • Participating in community planning; and • Creating a company.
In addition, the functions that may be taken on by a Model 2 or Model 3 RTP are described as follows in Section 10 of the Transport (Scotland) Act:
“The functions which may be the subject of an order under subsection (1) above may, without prejudice to the generality of that subsection, include any of the following— (a) those conferred on local transport authorities by or under Part 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (asp 2) (bus services) and Part 3 of that Act (road user charging); (b) those conferred by or under any enactment and which relate to the management and maintenance of a bridge constructed in pursuance of functions conferred by, or by an order made under or confirmed by, any enactment; (c) those conferred on traffic authorities by sections 1 to 4 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c.27) (traffic regulation orders) and on local traffic authorities by section 19 of that Act (regulation of use of roads by public service vehicles); (d) those conferred on councils by sections 63 and 64 of the Transport Act 1985 (c.67) (securing the provision of passenger transport and related consultation and publicity).
The following are examples of the functions which may be the subject of an order under this section— (a) entering into quality partnership schemes; (b) entering into quality contract schemes; (c) entering into ticketing arrangements and ticketing schemes; (d) providing information about bus services; (e) installing bus lanes; (f) providing subsidised bus services; (g) making and implementing road user charging schemes; (h) operating ferry services; (i) managing tolled bridges; (j) operating airports and air services; (k) entering into public service contracts.”
3 Page 126 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
Whilst other the granting of other transport functions (e.g. road maintenance, road safety or parking enforcement) are not explicitly prohibited by Section 10, it is clear that the intention of the Act was that Model 2 and Model 3 RTPs would primarily concern themselves with public transport, and road pricing.
Currently in Scotland three Model 3 RTPs exist, SPT in much of the former Strathclyde area, SWESTRANs and ZETTRANS. These latter two RTPs have only one constituent council, respectively Dumfries and Galloway, and Shetland Islands. The functions ceded by these Councils to their RTPs are defined in relevant Statutory Instruments (passed in 2006) and are as follows:
For ZETTRANS and SWESTRANS, the functions transferred wholly to the RTP include those relating to local travel concessionary schemes, making quality partnership and quality contract schemes, ticketing arrangements and ticketing schemes. The function of making traffic regulation orders (TROs) and functions relating to the provision and maintenance of bus shelters are held concurrently by both organisations.
For SPT, all the functions that were previously held by the former PTA and PTE transferred to the new Model 3 RTP, with the exception of rail powers, which moved to the Scottish Government. SPT does not have the functions of making TROs and the other bus shelter related functions of the two other Model 3 RTPs.
It can be seen that the functions actually ceded to these three RTPs are much more limited than the alphabetically numbered list in Section 10 of the Act.
2.2 Capacity of RTPs in Scotland
In the absence of other data the capacity of RTPs is measured here as the number of FTE staff that they employ, and their annual spend on staff. It can be seen that the two Model 3 partnerships do not employ more staff than their Model 1 partnerships, with the exception of SPT, which of course has many staff employed in operational roles in bus stations, on the Clyde ferries, in travel inquiry bureaux and on the Glasgow Underground.
Partnership Staff numbers SWESTRANS Employs no staff directly. Four staff from D&G Council run the partnership. ZETTRANS Employs no staff directly. Staff from Shetland Islands Council run the partnership. Tactran 6 Nestrans 8 SEStran 10 HITRANS 9
SPT 551 people, £22.386 million staff related costs (as of 31/03/2016, taken from SPT 2016 Annual Report). Central support functions cost approximately £2.7 million per year.
4 Page 127 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
2.3 Governance and Finance of RTPs There is no difference in the Act between the governance arrangements for Level 1 and Level 3 partnerships.
In terms of finance, all RTPs lost all direct Scottish government funding in 2010. They are all dependent on a levy on their constituent local authorities. It is not clear from the limited research that was conducted for this piece of work as to whether the funding available for the functions ceded to ZETTRANS and SWESTRANS increased when they took on those functions, in comparison to the situation when their constituent councils carried out those functions.
In Scotland, RTPs have no responsibility for concessionary fares schemes for older people, nor for the distribution of bus operators’ service grant to bus companies: these are exclusively national government functions. SPT runs an integrated ticketing scheme, Zonecard, accepted by all operators of all modes in its area, but this was set up many years ago when SPT was a PTA/E. In addition, RTPs, whether Model 1, 2 or 3 have no responsibility for securing rail services (whereas, prior to 2006, SPT was a signatory to the Scotrail franchise).
2.4 Other forms of passenger transport authority 2.4.1 Passenger Transport Authorities and Executives in England (PTAs and PTEs) History and current functions
The 1968 Transport Act created Passenger Transport Executives as public transport coordinating and operating bodies in the metropolitan areas of West and South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Merseyside and the West Midlands. In the regulated and publicly owned bus system that obtained prior to 1986, these PTEs were the main bus operator in their area, set service levels, subsidised fares and secured additional local rail services from the publicly owned operator, British Rail. They owned and operated bus stations, bus depots, and other transport infrastructure such as ferries, the Glasgow Underground and the Tyne and Wear Metro. They also promoted the construction of new transport infrastructure such as the Tyne and Wear Metro and many new railway stations.
From 1974, when metropolitan counties were created in England and regions in Scotland, the PTEs became accountable to and in part funded by their respective county or regional council. When the counties were abolished in England in 1986, the PTEs became accountable to and part-funded by a Passenger Transport Authority made up of elected members from their constituent district councils. At the same time they gradually stopped being bus operators (as their bus companies were subject to management buyouts) and could no longer specify bus services or fares in their areas due to bus deregulation under the 1985 Transport Act. They remained responsible for public transport coordination and securing socially necessary bus services, continued to run all operator integrated ticketing schemes, and continued to promote schemes such as Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram. From 2006 onwards they became the coordinating bodies for local transport strategy in their area in the English Local Transport Plan regime, a role that became statutory under the 2008 Local Transport Act in England. Also in 2006 all PTEs except for the one in Merseyside lost the role in assisting in specifying their
5 Page 128 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models local rail franchise that they had had since 1993; although they still receive subsidy from DfT to pass on to rail operators running local rail franchises in their areas.
The Local Transport Act was also very important in creating the successor to PTAs, called Integrated Transport Authorities (ITAs). These ITAs could in theory take on more functions from their constituent local authorities, in the same way as RTPs are able to, subject to the agreement of those local authorities, and could also include more local authorities from beyond the original PTA/E boundary. In practice, none did so. In the 2009 Local Democracy Act (as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016) the ITAs were themselves superseded by Combined Authorities (CAs) and in some cases the separate PTEs were subsumed into the CAs. Compared to the PTAs that existed before 2008, CAs:
• Cover a bigger area (e.g. West Yorkshire CA includes the City of York, which was never part of the ITA or PTA before it). • Can take on additional functions from Unitary District Councils such as highways (roads) functions – although as yet this has been limited only to a few powers in Greater Manchester. • Advise on the specification of relevant rail franchises – although the statutory role remains exclusively that of DfT and ORR. • In future they may have bus regulation powers over and above those in the 2000 Transport Act and the 2008 Local Transport Act (both pieces of legislation cover England and Wales only). • Have some responsibilities and competence in the areas of economic development and training. The legislation that enables CAs to be set up is very broad in the scope of functions that could move to a CA, and they could move from either national or local government, but they are to be stipulated in the order setting up each CA.
CAs have led on the development of City Deal equivalents in England for their regions. They have been instrumental in securing additional transport infrastructure funding and permission to borrow; for example, in the case of Greater Manchester, some £1.5 billion over 10 years.
Since the creation of the national concessionary minimum fares entitlement in England in 2006, PTEs have been responsible for operating the concessionary fares scheme for bus in their area, for which they receive grant from central government. If this grant does not cover their expenditure on the nationally determined entitlement, they must make savings in other areas in order to continue to deliver free concessionary travel on bus. They are not responsible for the distribution of BSOG (bus service operator’s grant, formerly known as fuel duty rebate).
Capacity PTEs and their descendants in England have much greater organisational capacity in relation to public transport than the county and unitary councils in other areas. The reasons for this are primarily historical: set up as new organisations in 1968 with a specific remit to improve (socially necessary) public transport in their area, they were resourced accordingly. This level has been eroded over the years due to reductions in government spending but it remains greater than in non-CA areas.
6 Page 129 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
Governance The legislation for Combined Authorities does not stipulate precisely their governance, other than that they must be run by board composed of at least one elected politician from each of the constituent local authorities. In practice, the CAs now in existence have one to two members from each constituent local authority (in West Yorkshire, for example, there are 9 elected members from 6 councils), and a representative of the Local Enterprise Partnership as a non-voting member. Votes are not weighted by population and in the event of a tie a vote is deemed not to have passed. In the future some CAs will have an elected Mayor.
Finance In the main at present CAs receive funding directly from national government, related to their former role as PTAs and PTEs. They also place a levy on their constituent local authorities. Transport capital investment comes from national government but it must compete with other training and economic development spending priorities – transport infrastructure funding previously allocated under the Local Transport Plan regime is no longer ring-fenced to transport. Mayors of CAs will have powers to increase council tax by up to 2 percentage points (if this is specified in the order establishing his/her CA).
2.4.2 Transport for Greater Manchester This organisation is the transport arm of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. As well as the public transport functions of the former ITA and PTE (similar to those of other CAs as described in the previous section), TfGM incorporates other transport functions, primarily related to data, modelling and performance monitoring of the regional and local road network. It also manages traffic signals across Greater Manchester, delivers some road safety activities, provides travel information for road users, and coordinates road works. Many of these functions transferred from joint units (funded by the 10 GM local authorities) that existed before TfGM was created, that were themselves created after the abolition of the former Greater Manchester County Council in 1986 in recognition of the value of and economies of scale achievable from a conurbation-wide approach to the provision of these services. Finally, TfGM owns the Metrolink light rail system, which is operated by a contractor, currently Transdev.
TfGM is governed by a committee of the Combined Authority, made up of 33 councillors from the 10 Manchester districts. Certain key decisions, primarily related to finance, are referred up to the CA governing board.
The scale of funding available to TfGM is significantly greater than for the transport arms of other Combined Authorities. This is primarily because Greater Manchester secured with the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer agreement for the Greater Manchester Transport Fund. This released additional funding from central government, and permissions to borrow, for investment in transport projects that are intended to increase regional gross value added (GVA) more than it would have increased in the absence of these projects. The total value of the fund is around £1.5 billion at 2012 prices, over ten years. The borrowing is to be repaid from an additional Council tax levy and from Metrolink fares surpluses. The investments cover mainly extensions to the Metrolink network, public transport interchanges, new bus links, a busway and some limited road construction.
7 Page 130 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
The revenue budget for TfGM is outlined in Figure 1, below.
Figure 1 – revenue spending by TfGM, 2011/12 (from TfGM Annual Report 2011/12)
2.4.3 Transport for London (TfL) TfL was set up under the 1999 Greater London Act, which also created the elected body, the Greater London Authority (GLA), of which TfL is the transport executive arm. TfL brought together the former London Transport and the Office of the Traffic
8 Page 131 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
Director for London which prior to the creation of the GLA were accountable to boards appointed by the Department for Transport. TfL is responsible for all aspects of highway management and development on London’s strategic road network, for the underground, for buses, for light rail and for rail services operating wholly within Greater London. It directly owns and operates the underground, whilst other public transport services are operated by private companies under contract to TfL in a regulated environment in which TfL sets fares and services, both routes and frequencies.
TfL is accountable to a board appointed by the Mayor of London and it takes its strategic direction from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, a document prepared by the GLA. The GLA also has a strategic land use planning function, meaning that there is some institutional alignment between strategic land use and transport planning. The Mayor governs the GLA with its nine elected members acting as a scrutiny body, although also one that approves the Mayor’s budget.
The GLA receives government grant for its operations and permission to borrow for its investments. In addition the Mayor levies an additional Council tax.
For 2016/17 TfL’s total turnover is budgeted to be around £10.4 billion. Some £4.8 billion of this is planned to come from fares (46%). Of the balance:
• £1.4 billion will come from government grant (for capital and operations); • £1 billion will come from local business rates (including some £159 million from incremental business rates from a specific enterprise zone used to part-finance an extension of the northern Line into that zone) and council tax; • £2.1 billion will come from borrowing and cash reserves; and • Around £900 million will come from property, advertising and congestion charge income.
The grant, business rate and council tax income equates to about £300 per head, given a Greater London population of 8 million (compared to £72 per head in Greater Manchester, although bear in mind that TfGM has no roads functions). The direct government grant for general operations (£447 million) is due to be phased out over the next 2-3 years and due to this TfL is aiming to be self-financing in its operations by 2019. Nonetheless, its funding from tax will remain high in relation to other public sector public transport bodies in Britain. (Source of all financial data: TfL Annual Report and accounts 2016.)
2.4.4 Continental northern European PTAs In countries such as Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, France and Germany it is typical to have a form of regional passenger transport authority. These vary as follows:
• Some report to directly elected regional councils whilst others are accountable to a board made up of elected members from constituent districts and cities. • Some are funded by direct government grant, whilst others receive funding from regional taxation, and others from a levy on constituent authorities. • Some are responsible for bus, tram and rail, whilst others cover only bus and tram.
9 Page 132 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
The important commonality is that there is a public sector regional public transport body that runs public transport in its region either by awarding competitively tendered contracts to private operators to run public transport services or by a directly awarded concession. This body sets fares, routes and frequencies, is responsible for (integrated) ticketing, and coordinates services and carries out marketing. This body is in some way politically accountable and it receives a portion of its operating costs from taxation, and the rest from fares. Since none of these countries ever previously deregulated their local or regional public transport services, these regional public transport bodies have developed from an earlier public sector model – typically ownership and direct operation of local public transport by individual local authorities.
An example of such a body for which financial information is readily available is the PTA in the Skåne region of southwest Sweden. The PTA is part of Region Skåne which is a directly elected regional council. It sets public transport policy and finance. Planning, tendering, ticketing and marketing of local and regional buses and regional trains is carried out by its 100% owned executive arm, Skånetrafiken, which also owns the rail depots and trains needed to run regional rail services. Services are provided by private operators running under gross cost contracts to Skånetrafiken. Some 1.25 million people live in Skåne and around 152 million public transport trips per year are made. A monthly all modes season ticket costs around £120. Operations are subsidised at an annual cost of £177 million (2013, cash prices, 10.5SEK=£1 (excluding annualized capital costs of rail depots)). This subsidy amounts to £1.16 per trip across bus and rail combined. (Source: Region Skåne, 2015.)
10 Page 133 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
3. CURRENT CHALLENGES AND HOW DIFFERENT PTA MODELS COULD ADDRESS THEM
3.1 Introduction and caveat The client has asked how well different models of PTA, and specifically a Model 3 Regional Transport Partnership, are equipped to deal with current challenges and to deliver outcomes that are important for its constituent authorities and relevant to the planned City Deal. In this section, each of the five models of PTA described in the previous section of the report is evaluated in relation to the challenges specified by the client. The wording of this challenges as set out in the brief for this report is reproduced in the subheadings of the report’s following sections.
The evaluation here is based on the form and organisational capacity of each of these 5 models of PTA currently in existence. This is an important point: it should not be assumed that a new Model 3 RTP in the SEStran area (or other model of PTA, should new legislation permit this) will necessarily have the same organisational capacity as PTAs of the same model that currently exist. This is because, as pointed out earlier, much of the capacity of existing forms of PTA results from their history. However, since it is outwith the scope of this report to try to predict the capacity of a new PTA of a given type, this report has to take the capacity of existing PTAs of each type as its starting point. This issue should be borne in mind when interpreting the results.
3.2 Planning and delivering transport solutions for all modes of transport across the region The ability of an organisation to deliver “transport solutions” depends on its functions, finance and capacity. A limited number of transport solutions thought by the authors to be of particular interest to this study are listed in the following table, together with the numbers of each solution delivered in different areas of Britain in the since 2000, and showing the number delivered in Model 3 RTP or CA areas. Given the scope of the study and in view of data availability, the list of transport solutions covers only public transport. The table excludes London because of its high level of public finance and very different powers but includes Scotland and Wales.
Table 1 – Transport solutions and where they have been delivered
Transport solution Number delivered since 2000 (of those, number in CA or Model 3 RTP areas) New tram and light rail lines (including 11 (7) extensions of existing networks) New busways of any length 11 (6) Railway lines reopened to passengers 12 (4) New railway stations 58 (12) Statutory quality bus partnerships 6 (1) Multi-operator ticketing Many urbanised counties/unitaries in England (7) Public sector control of bus routes, fares 0 and frequencies through franchising
11 Page 134 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
It can be seen that in cases relating to new busways, light rail and quality partnerships, the CAs have been most active. However, rail is a rather different story, with the majority of new stations and railway lines (re-)opening in non-CA areas, particularly since 2005, when CAs lost their direct rail powers. Scotland and Wales have predominated in the new railway line and station statistics since then, reflecting the greater powers acquired by their national administrations over rail in 2005. In addition only one area, a CA, Tyne and Wear, made an attempt in 2015 to get formal permission from central government to move to a franchised system for its bus network, but its application was refused. In contrast, the TfL area and continental PTAs have this power.
In relation to multi-operator ticketing, the Local Transport Act (2008) in England and Wales marked a major change as it allowed operators to collaborate on delivering ticketing without fear of breaking competition law. Since then, a large number of multi-operator ticketing schemes have developed in English areas outside the CA areas. Prior to 2008, other than the CA (then PTE) areas there were very few such schemes. Those within CA areas are multi-modal whereas outside CA areas they are limited mostly to bus; and the market share for these tickets is higher in CA areas, with Tyne and Wear’s multi-modal multi-operator ticket used by around 10% of passengers. However, in no case in any area is the multi-operator ticket cheaper than a comparable single-operator product.
In the TfL and continental PTA areas, multi-modal ticketing does not distinguish between operators – fares are the same regardless of operator used and are usually based on the number of fare zones travelled through. (London makes a distinction between fares for rail/underground and bus travel; other areas usually do not.) In northern continental Europe, period passes generally offer far better value for money than single tickets; an adult monthly pass for all modes in Skåne, SW Sweden, costs around £120, whilst an annual all modes (tram, metro, train and bus) pass for the Munich metropolitan region costs €795.
It is not possible to be definitive about the reasons why CA areas deliver more in some areas but it is likely a combination of greater capacity, some additional finance, and the fact that they speak to national government on behalf of a very large number of people in each region, in comparison to most unitary authorities outside CA areas. (This has particularly been the case in Greater Manchester.) It is also clear that changes in national legislation relating to rail and to ticketing have influenced CAs’ ability to deliver in comparison to non-CA areas. The ability of TfL and continental models to deliver is because they have similar organisational capacity but in addition they contract operators to run their services in a regulated environment, and the PTA retains the fares revenue which it can use to cross- subsidise from more profitable to unprofitable routes.
3.2.1 Economies of scale in delivery and Resilience An argument for delivering transport services at a regional rather than local level is the potential to achieve economies of scale – more or the same service delivered with less financial input. The workforce size of each of the English CAs, including their transport arms, and their salary bills, are shown in the table below (sourced from the annual report and accounts of each organisation). These data may not be 100% accurate because of the definition of which staff work for which organisation, but they provide an order of magnitude impression and should be compared with the
12 Page 135 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models data in Table 1 regarding the number of staff employed in the Scottish RTPs. Of course, the majority of the CAs below employ relatively large numbers of staff involved in operations such as Tyne and Wear Metro (which employs 330 of the staff at Nexus). Nonetheless, a relatively large number of staff are employed in strategy and planning roles also.
Table 2: Staff costs and numbers at English CAs and PTEs or equivalent
Authority Salary bill 2015/16 Total employees (£000’s) WYCA including former WYPTE 11,740 454 Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE) 27,775 597 South Yorkshire (SCRCA) 5,477 230 including SYPTE Merseyside CA (LCRCA) including 22,511 819 former Merseyside PTE West Midlands CA and former 14,002 341 PTE Transport for Greater Manchester 24,023 707
In terms of staff employed to plan and procure tendered bus services compared to the budget spent, it is helpful to compare Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE) with SEStran. In five authorities in the SEStran area, CEC, Fife, Falkirk, SBC and Midlothian, some 12 staff are employed to work solely or partly on this task. In total they allocate a budget of some £9.93 million (2016/17) although it should be noted that this is dominated by Fife, with £5.5 million. At Nexus some 12 staff are employed to work solely or partly on the same task and to manage a budget of £7.9 million. Obviously these are only two examples and a more thorough analysis would have to be undertaken to draw full conclusions about the economies of scale or otherwise arising from the two governance models.
In addition to the resilience aspects, one further advantage of concentrating the staff responsible for this function within one organisation in a region is, as organisations lose staff in funding cutbacks, to retain some level of knowledge and specialisation in this function within the organisation. Where only one member of staff in an organisation is responsible for the function, if they are lost, their knowledge and skills are lost to the organisation. With respect to the function of tendering bus services, this loss of organisational knowledge is less likely to happen in Nexus than it is in a small unitary authority.
3.3 Positive pricing and fares integration Fares integration in terms of multi-operator multi-modal ticketing was discussed in the previous section. The term “positive pricing” is taken to mean, for example, limits to fares increases, or fares set in relation to affordability, or to their comparability with motoring costs. With respect to bus fares, the only powers that any public authorities in Britain outside London have over the fares set by operators on commercial services are contained in the 2008 Local Transport Act (England and Wales only). This permits a statutory quality bus partnership to include stipulations on maximum fares. To the author’s knowledge, the only QBPs to do this are in the
13 Page 136 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
Bristol Bath and Northeast Somerset area, an area with exceptionally high fares – for example, £5 single to travel 15km.
In areas such as SWESTRANS and ZETTRANS, where there are few or no commercial services, then the Model 3 partnership has a big influence over fares levels as it procures the vast majority of bus services in its area, for which it sets fares. Elsewhere, where subsidised tendered services form a small proportion of a much larger network, the tendering authorities must set fares on their subsidised services that are broadly in line with those on commercial services in the same area (i.e. they are not permitted by the 1985 Transport Act to “undercut” commercial fares). Where CAs are owners and/or operators of metros and light rail, as in the West Midlands, Manchester and Tyne and Wear, they have direct control of the fares on these services.
As noted above, TfL and continental European PTAs do set fares in their specific regulatory environments. Politically they are able to make the choice as to the proportion of public transport operating cost that comes from fares, and the proportion from tax. It is notable that over the past 10 years public transport fares in Norway, for example, have broadly mirrored changes in motoring costs, whilst those in Britain on both bus and rail have increased much faster. This has been achieved without significant increases in subsidies due to increases in efficiency driving down operating cost; however, now these efficiencies have been achieved, it may not be possible to keep down fares without additional subsidy.
3.3.1 Positive pricing for certain groups of travellers People of retirement age
People of state retirement age and over, and disabled people, receive a national minimum concessionary bus fare of free travel on local bus services in England. They cannot travel in the morning peak on weekdays but otherwise travel is unlimited. In Scotland, the entitlement is more generous, as it starts at aged 60 and has no time restrictions. There is some evidence that the free concession has increased social inclusion for the poorest pensioners (e.g. Rye and Mykura 2006) and led wealthier pensioners to drive less.
CAs in England negotiate their own agreements with operators on reimbursement for the concessionary scheme in their area. They receive money from government to pay the reimbursement. However this often does not fully cover the cost of the scheme (due to its popularity, and its open-ended nature) such that the CA must either change the reimbursement mechanism to pay less to the operators, or it must take finances from other functions. The former mechanism can backfire since operators may respond by cutting services. In Scotland, the concessionary fares scheme is national and operators are reimbursed by Transport Scotland.
Unemployed people
Jobseekers across Britain are eligible for the JobSeeker plus card and major bus operators give a 50% discount on their fares with this card.
However, in addition, most CAs operate schemes providing jobseekers with free bus (and where available metro/tram) travel to interviews, plus a month’s free travel
14 Page 137 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models once a job has been secured, so that people can afford to travel to work before their first pay packet comes in. This scheme was nationwide for a period around 2013 for anyone with a JobSeeker plus card, but has since been scaled back. The only area that appears to operate it currently that is not a CA is the City of Nottingham. Between 2003 and 2014 this scheme is estimated to have helped 13,000 jobseekers back into work in the West Midlands alone (source: Centro, 2014). Another evaluation in one part of the West Midlands found that over 80% of those who used the scheme would have found it extremely difficult to access job opportunities without the scheme (Urban Transport Group, 2015).
3.4 Improved cross-regional mobility for regional labour, training and employability; and improved community connectivity In Britain outside London the primary power that CAs, Model 3 RTPs and local authorities all share in regard to these outcomes is the ability to secure “socially necessary” services under subsidised contracts with bus operators, to run services in places and/at times where there are no commercially provided routes. For example, in the West Midlands (personal communication, October 2016):
Subsidised bus services – a range of tendered ‘socially necessary’ bus services provided by Transport for the West Midlands (TfWM) under successive Transport Act duties – top-up the commercial network at certain times/places, and add around 11% more bus kilometres to the network.
TfWM assesses local needs for tendered services, using Accessibility Planning techniques for large changes to the network, and also ensuring a maximum 400m walk from urban households to their nearest bus stop. Tendered service needs are also prioritised on journey purpose – with work and school journeys given highest priority, all subject to a minimum level of demand, and value for money (cost/demand) test.
Operating tendered services cost £7.4M in 2015/16, a small reduction from the previous year, reflecting continued pressure on funding. The funds purchased 11.8m bus kilometres, which saw 10.9m boardings. Bus kilometres and boardings figures have also reduced year-on-year, but boardings on tendered services are still 4% of the total.
There is evidence from individual case studies that CAs have used their subsidised bus service budgets to take very specific and successful steps to improve access to employment. An example, taken from Urban Transport Group (2015, p 7) is as follows:
SOS is the largest online fashion store in both the UK and Europe. ASOS partnered with Unipart to manage its European distribution centre when it relocated to South Yorkshire. ASOS Unipart began recruiting in early 2011, teaming up with Jobcentre Plus they sought to draw candidates from a jobseeker market of largely semi-skilled people aged 19-25 from the local area.
Initial survey data showed that more than 75% of candidates did not drive or have access to vehicles. This made it nearly impossible to get to the site, where buses were infrequent and there were no evening or Sunday services. Jobcentre Plus was finding that up to 92 potential candidates per week were unable to accept or apply for a role at ASOS. In response, South Yorkshire
15 Page 138 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
PTE, in partnership with local bus operators, altered bus routes stopping at the site and adjusted and expanded timetables to match shift patterns.
Following the alterations, bus patronage on the enhanced services grew from 108 in the first week of service in late June 2011, to 831 per week in September 2011. The bulk of this increase is likely to represent people connected to jobs that they otherwise could not have reached.
However, it is not clear whether schemes like this are more likely to be provided in CA than non CA areas. From the point of view of this report, the key general issue is whether CAs and Model 3 RTPs can deliver more socially necessary bus services, and if so whether they do so more efficiently, than their unitary authority counterparts. Whether they can deliver more is primarily related to funding, although also to the competitiveness of the local market for tendered services as well as its operating conditions; and whether they can do it more efficiently relates to their capacity, expertise and ability to achieve economies of scale and secure a better deal from their bidders.
An analysis of Bus and Coach Statistics for Great Britain (DfT, 2015) shows that the CAs in England deliver exactly the same proportion of the total socially necessary bus mileage in England as they have population: 26% of the supported bus mileage and 26% of the population (excluding London) in 2015 (down from 38% of the total supported bus mileage in 1987). By virtue of course of their small geographical area, this means that the density of this service is higher in the CA areas than in counties and unitaries outside, but this will not necessarily be the case if the CAs grow geographically (as the northeast CA already has) without a growth in their supported services budget. In terms of spend, the CAs account for 41% of the total £302 million spent on supported services in England outside London in 2014/15. They spent £10.50 per person on these services in that financial year, whilst non-CA areas spent £8.10.
On top of this should be added revenue support to metro services Tyne and Wear of around £35 million per year; and to rail services in all CA areas (which is a grant direct from DfT which the CAs then pass on to operators). In general these figures imply that more is spent on subsidy to public transport services in CA areas than outwith these areas, supporting a denser network of socially necessary services.
The Merseyrail franchise is rather unique in the British rail system and therefore worthy of note. Although run by private operators, they provide a service under gross cost contract to the transport arm of the Merseyside CA, which then takes the revenue risk for the network. The network consistently achieves levels of service, service quality, investment and customer satisfaction that are well above average. However, the subsidy (which comes from the DfT, to Merseytravel) is the highest in the industry, at £86.2 million in 2014/15 – around £80 per year for each person in the CA area, and 12.4 pence per passenger km (compared to a national average negative subsidy (i.e. payment to DfT) of 1.3 pence per passenger km).
Because several CA areas have light rail or metro, and in most of these they control the fares and because, for historic reasons, rail networks are denser in the CA areas than outside them (except for in London), they receive more rail subsidy than non CA areas, then in total the density of the subsidised public transport network is far higher than outside the CA areas. However, without extremely detailed analysis it is not possible to quantify this density, but all other things being equal it means that
16 Page 139 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models access to jobs and community connectivity will be higher in the CA areas than outside them. Nonetheless, it is crucial to remember the role of historical funding decisions in producing this situation; creation of a new CA or similar will not automatically replicate the situation in existing CAs.
3.5 Provision of transport for people with disabilities and intersectionality across groups Disability, race and gender often overlap to create and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage; this is intersectionality. Public transport services that meet the needs of one group of people, for example disabled people, are also likely therefore to have beneficial impacts on people suffering from other forms of disadvantage. Demand responsive public transport created primarily for disabled people will also help people without a disability but living in poverty in areas without conventional public transport to reach the services, and jobs, that they need, for example. Another example of intersectionality is in relation to gender. In almost all parts of the world – and Scotland is no exception to this - women are more likely than men to use public transport, and more likely to need public transport to balance work and caring responsibilities. However as Bramley et al (2016) also highlight, getting women into greater full time employment has significant positive impacts on the gender pay gap and in-work poverty
There is evidence from falling use of Dial a Ride services across Britain that disabled people may be moving to conventional public transport as those services become more accessible, and also to car, as evidenced by increasing use of Motability services (see Hunter, 2015). Nonetheless, there remains a large group of people whose disabilities mean that they cannot use conventional public transport vehicles or that they cannot walk to and from the stops/stations due to long walking distances and/or walking environments that have not been subject to the reasonable improvements that roads authorities have a duty to make under the Equality Act 2010 to make them accessible. In addition, in some areas there are simply no conventional scheduled public transport services. Therefore, these people depend on their car, if they have one and can drive; or on friends and family; and/or on flexible and demand responsive accessible transport services.
There is unfortunately no single “directory” of the services offered in different areas of the UK for people who have problems using, or have no access to, conventional public transport. It is also not always clear what type of service is provided in an area, since different service providers provide different services and information about them is not always coordinated. This also means that the information provided here may not be fully complete. However, based on the information available to the authors, three areas’ provision of flexible and accessible transport are described in the table below, which covers one unitary authority, one Model 3 RTP and one CA area. (This table does not show any such transport that is provided or funded by another public sector body, such as a Health Board.)
17 Page 140 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
Table 3 – comparison of accessible transport services in different PTA areas
Area Type of service Overall Trips/year Cost/trip to Trips and and fare cost/year (approx) public funding per to sector head of authority population SPT MyBus – scheduled Unclear – 490,000 £8 (excludes 0.22 trips and infrequent up to £4 capital costs £1.81 accessible services million? of vehicles at that divert from least some route to provide of which are door to door service owned by in an area or SPT) corridor. Must be booked. Free to concession holders. City of Dial a Ride fully Total for 110,000 £6.88 0.23 trips Edinburgh accessible fully both £1.64 flexible bookable up £757,000 to 1 hour in advance, £5 for 5 mile trip Dial a Bus similar to MyBus in SPT area, £1.25 per trip TfG Ring and Ride, very Around £5 1,327,000 £3.76 0.47 trips Manchester similar to Edinburgh million per £1.79 Dial a Ride but trip year lengths limited, low/free fare Local Link – bookable shared minibus running in certain local areas
Table 3, above, shows some evidence that a better and cheaper service is provided in Greater Manchester than the other two areas, one a unitary and one a Model 3 RTP. SPT’s service is well used and its cost per trip is not excessive but it is not very flexible. Edinburgh’s service is flexible but at a high cost to the user that does not appear to be reflected in a lower public subsidy per trip than the other two schemes where users pay much lower charges. Transport for Greater Manchester appears to be providing the best combination of value for money to the public purse, and to the user, whilst providing a flexible service. However, whether this is the result of it being a combined authority or some other factor such as the organisation having had more bids for the relevant contract(s) is unclear.
In PTAs in other northern European countries the availability and right to accessible transport varies widely and there is not scope in this report to give a full review. However, to take the example of Sweden, here some 3.3% of the total population has the right to use a low cost, fully accessible, fully flexible demand responsive form of public transport which must be provided by law by local authorities (called färdtjänst). Users must book, they have to pay between £2 and £7 per trip and there is a limit on the number of trips that they can take. The average number of trips taken per eligible person per year is 35 (11 million in total across Sweden), at a cost to the public purse of £300 million (a cost that is separate from the subsidy for
18 Page 141 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models conventional public transport). This ridership is much higher than in comparable British schemes, but cost coverage from fares is also, and cost per trip to the public purse is several orders of magnitude greater.
In addition, most regional public transport authorities run demand responsive services on semi-flexible routes in areas without conventional public transport for people who are not eligible for färdtjänst. These cost no more than the equivalent bus fare, but may run only once or twice a day. (All data from Wretstrand, personal communication, November 2016.) They are funded from within the regional public transport budget which is able to do so more effectively than in the British system since the regional PTAs keep the revenue from all public transport operations and can therefore use the profits from more profitable routes to cross-subsidise less profitable and demand responsive routes.
3.6 Contribution to the health, employability and welfare reform agendas – The links between transport, health and employability are complex but it is clear from academic evidence that mental and physical health are negatively affected if an individual is not able to participate fully in society, and lack of transport can be a factor in this (Currie et al, 2010; OECD, 2016). The question for this report is whether a Model 3 RTP would be better placed to reduce these transport-related barriers than the current governance situation can do and better promote Inclusive Growth as outlined in Scotland’s Economic Strategy:
The Scottish Government’s Inclusive Growth policy framework captures the multidimensionality of IG. The fulcrum of these areas is in the labour market. As a long term enterprise, inclusive growth is about promoting more and better quality jobs; and ensuring that all have the opportunity to contribute to the economy.
There are also the challenges of projected high levels of population growth in the region; an effective regional transport planning organisation is likely to be required to respond to these.
An analysis of the likelihood that a PTA could deliver benefits I these areas boils down once again to the evidence that Model 3 and other forms of PTA are able to more efficiently provide a higher level of subsidised bus service and specialist transport for disabled and other socially disadvantaged people than their Model 1 and Unitary Authority counterparts. The information presented above in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 indicates that the evidence that Model 3 RTPs and English CAs are more able to do this than their unitary and Model 1 counterparts is not clear. More service may be provided, but this is at a cost, and it is not clear that efficiency increases with the scale of the operation.
The recent emerging findings of the Royal Society of Art’s Inclusive Growth Commission was published in September 20161. The report focussed on a definition of Inclusive Growth as a broad based growth that enables the widest range of people and places to both contribute to and benefit from economic success.
1 https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-articles/reports/emerging-findings-of-the- inclusive-growth-commission/
19 Page 142 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
One of the key messages was the need to invest in social as well as physical infrastructure. Specifically in a transport context, this debate focussed on the need to prioritise connecting people to economic opportunities, through better skills planning and provision, through the provision of better local transport services as much if not more so that traditional physical road network infrastructure improvements. The report clearly highlights that simply building transport links is not enough to change patterns of economic mobility and cultures.
The report also stresses that whilst transport connectivity is important for realising the benefits of agglomeration, its effectiveness is predicated on connecting high- skilled workers with high-skilled jobs and investment to drive up productivity and growth. However, the report highlights that there are numerous communities across the UK within a few miles of such improvements to transport opportunities that do not always benefit. These opportunities can be denied by an ingrained mindset the report observes against working in the city centre or the sheer cost of travel to a low paid or zero-hour contract role. Whilst some communities and people will clearly benefit from places becoming, in effect, commuter towns for bigger city centre focussed labour markets, other people and places typically low skilled or economically inactive, risk being further excluded.
Therefore, the report observes, transport services and accessibility can be a preventative measure as part of a wider integrated economic strategy if actions go beyond traditional capital-based transport investment. However, it also highlights that prevention is an elusive business, where investment generates returns that fall into someone else’s budget, thereby discouraging the original investment. They suggest moving beyond a “cookie-cutter” approach to segmentation of policy responsibility and focussing on genuinely geographically inclusive place-based strategies tailored to the needs, ambitions and nuances of a place’s economic geography. This would help address a key Commission finding that inequalities are driven partly by distance from public services and decision making.
The Infrastructure workstream of the Edinburgh Region City Deal is to undertake further work on the investment proposal to understand the impact on areas of high deprivation and unemployment up to 30 minutes travel time from the individual projects. This is intended to provide an evidence base to underpin the potential impact on inclusion and also to support the regional Employability and Skills Programme to improve the employment rate and reduce welfare dependency. Because PTAs have traditionally and continue to focus on public transport services and fares just as much as infrastructure provision, it would be useful if this research could look further at the impact of a PTA on accessibility to employment or training opportunities.
3.7 Summary Table 4, below, tries to summarise the findings of this chapter by rating the different possible forms of PTA according to their ability to deliver on the outcomes set out in the client’s specification for this report.
20 Page 143 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
Table 4: Summary showing different PTA models and their possible impacts on outcomes
Outcome Model 3 RTP Combined authority TfL or continental PTA Planning and Clear that SPT offers a English CAs have delivered Easier to deliver schemes delivering transport wider range of transport consistently more of many and other solutions due to solutions for all solutions (e.g. multi- types of new schemes and greater funding and modes of transport modal ticketing; busway; transport solutions than regulatory control. across the region Subway; extensive rail have unitary areas. This Greater organisational network) than found in likely due to greater capacity for historic reasons Model 1 RTP areas capacity and funding, mainly for historic reasons Economies of scale Little evidence but data Little evidence but data Little evidence but data in delivery limited limited limited Positive pricing and SPT runs Zonecard – All CAs have run multi- These types of authority fares integration pretty much unique in modal multi-operator have control over fares. Scotland ticketing for many years; but more expensive than TfL seeking to eliminate single operator ticketing operating deficit. Fares Outside CA areas, multi- therefore not especially low. operator ticketing appearing due to change in Elsewhere in northern competition law Europe, fares for regular travellers extremely cheap. GB’s only quality bus partnership with fares caps Multi-mode and multi- is in non-CA area operator tickets standard Positive pricing for Subject to national All CAs run special fares Due to control of fares and certain groups of concessionary fare deals for job seekers, not revenue, PTA can choose travellers available in non-CA areas to set lower fares for certain (except Nottingham). groups. No need to negotiate with operators Subject to national regarding compensation for concessionary fare any concessions. Improved cross- Little evidence that SPT Higher spending per head Ability to cross-subsidise regional mobility for runs more tendered bus on tendered bus services in unprofitable services with regional labour, services per head than these areas than in unitary revenue from profitable training and do local authorities in authorities. Denser services (due to gross cost employability; and Model 1 RTP areas service. Certain services contracts in regulated improved specifically designed to environment) allows community enable access to provision of more service connectivity employment for people on on low demand routes than low wages. in equivalent areas of Scotland. Provision of No evidence to suggest More work required to As above; cross-subsidy transport for people that provision better in demonstrate that CAs can be used to support with disabilities and these areas than in achieve economies of demand responsive intersectionality unitary or Model 1 areas scale and better provision services in rural areas across groups than unitary counterparts. Contribution to the Evidence limited Evidence limited. If more Levels of service higher and health, services provided in these (except TfL) fares lower in employability and areas than outside, ceterus these areas compared to welfare reform paribus then travel should PTA and unitary areas. agendas be less of a barrier to Transport therefore less of health and employability in a barrier to social inclusion. CA areas
21 Page 144 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
Overall, then, this table shows that there is limited evidence that Model 3 RTPs and CAs necessarily provide much better performance against outcomes than do their unitary counterparts. They are not necessarily more efficient in what is delivered per £ spent or person employed. They do offer resilience benefits, as there are more people working on the same issue in an RTP or CA compared to in a local authority. In addition there is evidence that the English CAs deliver more and more different types of scheme than their unitary counterparts, but this is most likely due to greater organisational capacity and knowledge, which is something that they have acquired over time. Their greater funding also allows them to provide special fares for jobseekers, and for investment in light rail; and the greater funding is itself partly a product of greater organisational capacity and the ability that comes with that to lobby central government more effectively for funds. However, to deliver major changes in regional public transport affordability and service the CAs would have to be funded differently and operate in a regulatory context more akin to that in the rest of northwest Europe. The difficulty with that would be the transaction costs and general organisational upheaval.
3.8 Relationships between a Model 3 SEStran and other organisations; and Model 3 SEStran membership Other regional public transport organisations
At present in the SEStran area there is another public transport organisation that has some aspirations to operate at a more regional level: Transport for Edinburgh (TfE). TfE, an arm’s length company 100% owned by the City of Edinburgh Council, was created as a holding company for Lothian Buses and Edinburgh Tram in order that they could operate without competing with each other and still comply with competition law. TfE has also become a brand for public transport in Edinburgh and on Lothian Buses services (and those of its subsidiaries) in East and Midlothian in particular, and TfE does have aspirations, as set out in its draft Strategy, to operate and manage other parts of the local and regional transport network, but currently there it has no statutory basis other than as a holding company.
It would be possible for a Model 3 SEStran RTP to be created without any formal reference to or agreement with TfE, but a more positive option would be to agree on functions that TfE might carry out (ceded to it by City of Edinburgh and potentially other Councils under a Service Level Agreement) and those that SEStran might carry out. In the longer term, SEStran might take a largely policy and strategy role, akin more to a combined authority in England, and TfE could be an executive arm, more akin to TfGM or Nexus. However, this would be complex to set up given TfE’s main and key role as a holding company for Lothian Buses and Edinburgh Tram.
Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and Stirling as members of a Model 3 SEStran
The principal benefit to these authorities of being part of a Model 3 SEStran created under current legislation would be to be part of a larger organisation responsible for public transport coordination and procurement of certain services, with the organisational knowledge, capacity, skills and resilience that this could bring. It could potentially ease the challenges of coordinating transport across unitary authority boundaries in these parts of the region and others.
22 Page 145 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
4. CONCLUSION
This report has first described the form, governance, functions and financing of different forms of passenger transport authority, before trying to analyse their relative ability to deliver on the outcomes from public transport that are required by the authorities within the SEStran region and the Edinburgh City Deal. There is evidence that they do deliver more transport improvements than their unitary authority and Model 1 RTP equivalents, and that they offer a wider range of ticketing, information and interchange facilities; they also spend more per head on tendered bus services than do their unitary counterparts. However, systematic evidence is lacking to be able to demonstrate unequivocally that they exercise their functions more efficiently and effectively, and that those functions are delivering more on outcomes, than in non PTA areas. This may of course be more a function of the lack of evidence than actual proof that PTAs are no more efficient/effective.
On the other hand, of the nine City Deals to be brokered by the Government in the first wave of the initiative, seven are in areas with a passenger transport authority. In this sense there is a clear link between having this form of regional public transport governance and being in the first tranche of city regions to be offered this form of financing of infrastructure and revenue spending for economic growth. Having a PTA also allows the region to speak with one voice to central government about its needs for (public) transport; and to show that it has the expertise required to deliver on these large spending commitments. Taking a regional approach to transport planning is also more likely than a more fragmented approach to be able to deliver cross-regional improvements in public transport connectivity. A PTA also offers organisational resilience in public transport coordination and planning that a number of smaller authorities with very small numbers of staff will find it hard to provide.
23 Page 146 TRI Edinburgh Napier University Report for SEStran on PTA models
References
Currie, Graham, et al. "Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne–Updated results." Research in Transportation Economics 29.1 (2010): 287-295.
Most recent Annual Reports from SPT, and West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Nexus, Merseyside PTE, Transport for Greater Manchester, Transport for the West Midlands, Transport for London, and South Yorkshire PTE.
Lothian Handicabs (2015) Annual Report 2014. Handicabs, Edinburgh.
DfT (2015) Bus and Coach Statistics GB. DfT, London.
Urban Transport Group (2015) Ticket to Thrive: the role of urban public transport in tackling unemployment. UTG, Leeds. http://www.urbantransportgroup.org/resources/types/reports/ticket-thrive-role-urban- public-transport-tackling-unemployment
Hunter, D. (2015) Working paper on ridership on Dial a Ride services around Britain. Not for Profit Planning, Edinburgh.
OECD (2016) Making Cities Work for All www.oecd.org/regional/making-cities-work- for-all-9789264263260-en.htm
24 Page 147 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11
Equality Mainstreaming Report and Equality Outcomes 2017 -2021
Report by the Chief Executive
Scottish Borders Council
30 March 2017
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
1.1 This report seeks approval of the Equality Mainstreaming Report 2017 -2021 in order that it may be published to meet the legal deadline of 30th April 2017.
The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 set 1.2 out specific duties for public bodies (including Local Authorities). These duties include reporting on the mainstreaming of the equality duty, publishing Equality Outcomes, reporting progress on these Outcomes and gathering and using employee information. This means that we have a duty to gather and use workforce data across the nine protected characteristics. We are also required to publish pay gap information and statements on equal pay.
1.3 The Equality Mainstreaming Report is required every four years, with an update in the two year period in between. Scottish Borders Council’s first Equality Mainstreaming Report was published in 2013 and covered the period 2013 – 2017. An Equality Mainstreaming Update Report was published in 2015 covering the period 2013-2015. We are therefore required to publish an updated Equality Mainstreaming report (Appendix 1) for the period 2017-2021. This must be published no later than 30th April 2017.
1.4 The development of the Equality Mainstreaming Report has taken account of the work that the Council has undertaken on equalities over the past four years and the legislative, economic and social changes, both locally and nationally, that have impacted on equality matters. This has involved looking at progress in taking forward the eight equality outcomes contained within the initial Equality Mainstreaming Report; and embedding equalities in the Council’s policies, processes and work practices. (Appendix 2)
1.5 The Equality Mainstreaming Report concludes that these equality outcomes are still relevant and should be maintained. A set of high level actions are produced to facilitate further progress in embedding equalities within the Council for the period 2017 -2021. Page 149 Scottish Borders Council 30 March 2017
1.6 The Equality Mainstreaming Report provides details on SBC’s Employee Data analysed by the protected characteristics and operational aspects. It also includes information on Equal Pay and the Gender Pay Gap. Appendix 3 provides full details.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 I recommend that the Council approves the Equality Mainstreaming Report as set out in Appendix 1 and the supplementary Appendices 2 and 3.
Page 150 Scottish Borders Council 30 March 2017 3 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Equality Act 2010 prescribed a general equality duty, for public bodies, including Scottish Borders Council. The duty requires the Council to have due regard for the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between groups.
3.2 This is considered against the nine protected characteristics covered by the Act: • Age • Disability • Gender Reassignment • Marriage and Civil Partnership • Pregnancy and Maternity • Race • Religion or belief • Sex • Sexual Orientation
3.3 The Scottish Government has prescribed more specific duties which Scottish public authorities must comply with in implementing the general equality duty.
3.4 As part of this duty Scottish Borders Council is required to produce an Equality Mainstreaming Report every four years. This must set out Equality Outcomes results that the Council aims to achieve. There is also a requirement to set out employee information in relation to equalities and to have a section on Education and Equalities.
3.5 The Council’s first Equality Mainstreaming Report was published in 2013 covering the period 2013-2017 and presented its approach to equalities. This included a set of Equality Outcomes which the Council aimed to achieve which were as follows: Outcome 1 We are seen as an inclusive equal opportunities employer where all staff feel valued and respected and our workforce reflects our community. Outcome 2 Our services meet the needs of, and are accessible to all members of our community and our staff treat all services users, clients and colleagues with dignity and respect. Outcome 3 Everyone has the opportunity to participate in public life and the democratic process. Outcome 4 We work in partnership with other agencies and stakeholders to ensure that our communities are cohesive and there are fewer people living in poverty. Outcome 5 Our citizens have the freedom to make their own choices and are able to lead independent, healthy lives as responsible citizens Outcome 6 The difference in rates of employment between the general Page 151 Scottish Borders Council 30 March 2017 population and those from under-represented groups is improved. Outcome 7 The difference in educational attainment between those who are from an equality group and those who are not is improved. Outcome 8 We have appropriate accommodation which meets the needs of our diverse community.
3.6 The Council produced a progress update on the Equality Mainstreaming Report in April 2015. This Report showed that the Council was working towards achieving full compliance with the duty across all service areas. A self-evaluation had been undertaken which found that most service areas felt they were fully or partially compliant. The Report set out a series of improvement actions including to:
Continue the work in establishing effective performance indicators for Council services. • Ensure that the business plans for service areas fully embed equalities and equality outcomes. • Develop a continuing training programme on Equalities and Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) for Council staff. • Improve Data gathering for Recruitment, Grievance, Discipline and Training.
3.7 There is a statutory requirement to produce and publish a refreshed Equality Mainstreaming Report for the period 2017-2021 no later than 30 April 2017.
4. SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL’S EQUALITY MAINSTREAMING REPORT 2017 -2021 4.1 The draft Equality Mainstreaming Report and Equality Outcomes 2017- 2021 (Appendix 1) provides an update and sets out the next steps on the Council’s equality journey.
4.2 The Equality Mainstreaming Report highlights how equality is mainstreamed into Council working practices. Appendix 2 sets out progress based on the 8 Equality Outcomes contained within the Council’s Equality Mainstreaming Report 2013-2017. This has been assessed on the basis of service activities and performance data. It shows that a large amount of work on equalities has been carried out.
4.3 The key areas of improvement in 2017 -2021 that need to be addressed are : Better equality performance indicators in relation to performance data. More effective training of Council Employees and Elected Members in relation to equalities. Ensuring service business plans and commissioned services are fully embedding equalities in their development and implementation. Greater effort to be made to engage with equality groups in the development of plans and policies.
4.4 The draft Equality Mainstreaming Report has taken account of the Page 152 Scottish Borders Council 30 March 2017 legislative, economic and social changes both locally and nationally which are impacting on equalities. There have been consultations with staff groups and an opportunity was also given to the public to provide input.
4.5 The draft Equality Mainstreaming Report proposes that the eight current outcomes remain as the basis of the Council’s approach to equalities. It also sets out a set of high level actions as a basis for moving equalities forward within the Council in the period 2017-21.
4..6 The draft Equality Mainstreaming Report also includes an analysis of employee data by: Gender Age Ethnic Origin Disability Gender Reassignment Sexual Orientation Religion and/or belief Marital Status Carer Status
Further analysis is provided of: Training Courses • Grievances • Disciplinary Action • Applications for Recruitment • Gender Pay Gap/Equal Pay Appendix 3 provides full details.
5 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial There are no direct financial implications to the Council in respect of (a) the matters highlighted in this report.
5.2 Risk and Mitigations
a) There are risks of legal challenge and to the Council’s reputation if an Equality Mainstreaming Report for the period 2017-2021 is not produced, approved and published by 30 April 2017.
5.3 Equalities
(a) Through the successful implementation of the Equality Outcomes contained within the Equality Mainstreaming Report there will be a strong and sustained positive impact on equality of opportunity, fostering good relations and eliminating discrimination, victimisation and harassment.
5.4 Acting Sustainably
a) The development and implementation of the Equality Mainstreaming Report contributes strongly to acting sustainably through its promotion of equality and diversity.
Page 153 Scottish Borders Council 30 March 2017 5.5 Carbon Management
There are no direct effects on carbon emissions arising from the proposals contained in this report.
5.6 Rural Proofing
The Equality Mainstreaming Report, through its emphasis on equalities, helps to address many of the issues the Council encounters due to the rural nature of the area it serves.
5.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation
There are no changes required to either the Scheme of Administration or the Scheme of Delegation as a result of the proposals contained in this report.
6 CONSULTATION
6.1 The Council’s Corporate Management Team, Chief Financial Officer, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Legal Officer, the Service Director Strategy and Policy, the Chief Officer Audit and Risk, the Chief Officer HR, and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted on the report.
Approved by
Name Signature …………………………………… Title
Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Douglas Scott Senior Policy Adviser Tel 01835 825155 (direct line) Simone Doyle Equality and Diversity Officer (HR) ex 5701 Iain Davidson Employee Relations Manager 01835 825221 (direct line)
Background Papers:
Equality Mainstreaming Report and Equality Outcomes 2013 – 2017
Equality Mainstreaming Report and Equality Outcomes 2013 – 2015 Update Report
Previous Minute Reference: N/A
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Douglas Scott can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Equality and Diversity, Chief Executive’s Department, Scottish Borders Council, tel. 01835 01835 824000 [email protected]
Page 154 Scottish Borders Council 30 March 2017 Scottish Borders Council Mainstreaming Report and Equality Outcomes 2017 - 2021
April 2017
You can get this document on tape, in large print, on disc and in various other formats. We can also provide information on language translations and on how to get more copies. To arrange for an officer to meet with you to explain any parts of this document that may be unclear, please contact us as follows: [email protected] or in writing to: Equality and Diversity Chief Executives Department Scottish Borders Council Head Quarters Newtown St Boswells Melrose TD6 0SA Telephone 01835 824000 ex 5701
Page 155 Foreword by the Chief Executive
This document presents Scottish Borders Council’s Equality Mainstreaming Report for the period 2017- 2021.
While the report forms part of our obligations in meeting the Public Sector Equality Duty, we see tackling discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and promoting good relations both within our workforce and the wider community as fundamental to how we deliver services as a Council.
Mainstreaming equality is about integrating an equality perspective into the everyday work of the Council, involving managers and policy makers across all Council services, in collaboration with Community Planning Partners.
We believe that considerable progress is being made in this work and there is a greater awareness across the Council about the importance of meeting the needs of our increasingly diverse population.
As I indicated in our Equality Mainstreaming Update Report in 2015, equality mainstreaming is a long term approach and it is our aim to provide better information, and have more transparency and openness in the way we make decisions about our services and resources.
This Equality Mainstreaming report is for the period 2017-21 and enables another step to be taken to embed equalities and diversity within the Council’s services.
Whilst successful implementation of the Mainstreaming Report will ensure compliance with current legislation and national policy, it also recognises both the moral and business case for eliminating discrimination, offering equality of opportunity and fostering good relations in relation to the provision of services and in employment practices thus ensuring equality, diversity and human rights are at the heart of everything the Council does.
Tracey Logan Scottish Borders Council Chief Executive
2 Page 156 Foreword from the Elected Member Champion for Equalities and Diversity
I took up my duties as Scottish Borders Council’s Equality Champion in 2013. Since then I have met with Equality Groups throughout the Scottish Borders such as the Borders LGBT Equality, members of the Polish community involved with the very successful Polish Saturday School in Hawick, and women’s and disability groups.
It is clear that the Scottish Borders is becoming a much more diverse place and there is a growing understanding across Borders communities about the importance of equality matters in their daily lives and in the delivery of services. This new Mainstreaming Equality Report for the period 2017-21 sets out the next steps that Scottish Borders Council will be taking in its equalities journey. The outcomes represent what the Council needs to aim for as an employer, a provider of services, a democratic body engaging with local communities and groups and in developing its policies.
Scottish Borders Council is taking equalities seriously and is making a great deal of progress in embedding equalities. I look forward to seeing the further development of this work in the coming years.
John Greenwell Scottish Borders Council Champion for Equality & Diversity
3 Page 157 Contents
Title Page No. 1 Introduction and Purpose 5 2 Equality and Diversity in the Scottish Borders 7 3 Equalities and Scottish Borders Council Vision, Priorities and 9 Standards 4 The Legal Context 10 5 Building on Previous Work 11 6 The Importance of Mainstreaming Equality 11 7 Scottish Borders Council’s Equality Mainstreaming Approach 11 8 Progress Scottish Borders Council’s Equality Mainstreaming 14 Report 2013 - 2017 9 Mainstreaming the Equality Duty in Education 25 10 Mainstreaming the Equality Duty as an Employer 30 Human Resource Policies and Practice 30 Workforce Planning 31 Training & Development 32 Equal Pay 33 Occupational Segregation 36 11 The way Forward for 2017-21 40 High level action plan 41
Appendix
Appendix 1 – Equality Outcome Performance Data
Appendix 2 Employment Data
4 Page 158 Introduction and Purpose
Scottish Borders Council is committed to tackling discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and promoting good relations both within our workforce and the wider community. Mainstreaming equality is the process by which we are working towards ensuring equality is at the heart of everything we do as an organisation.
This is considered against the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010:
• Age • Disability • Gender Reassignment • Marriage and Civil Partnership • Pregnancy and Maternity • Race • Religion or belief • Sex • Sexual Orientation
Scottish Borders Council’s first Equality Mainstreaming Report 2013-17 set out its approach to equalities. This included a set of Equality Outcomes which it aimed to achieve.
Equality Mainstreaming and Equality Outcomes Report 2013 – 2017
Scottish Borders Council produced a progress update on the Mainstreaming Report in April 2015. The Report showed that the Council was working towards achieving full compliance with the duty across all service areas. A self-evaluation had been undertaken which found that most service areas felt they were fully or partially compliant. The Report also set out a series of improvement actions.
Equality mainstreaming update report 2013-2015 | Scottish Borders Council
This new Equality Mainstreaming Report 2017- 21 replaces the previous Equality Mainstreaming report (2013-17) and serves to meet Scottish Borders Council’s statutory duty to produce such a document.
The development of the Report has taken account of the work the Council has undertaken on equalities, and legislative, economic and social changes both locally and nationally. It has involved dialogue and consultation with staff together with a short public consultation exercise.
This mainstreaming report provides background information on equalities in the Borders, describes the legal context with some additional changes that need to be considered. A qualitative and quantitative assessment is then given of progress in mainstreaming equalities within the Council. The report
5 Page 159 concludes with areas of improvement that need to be made to progress equalities mainstreaming between 2017 and 2021.
6 Page 160 Equality and Diversity in the Scottish Borders - Statistics
2015 population of Scottish Borders - 114,030 (National Records of Scotland Vital Events 2015) 1,037 births in the Scottish Borders (9.1 per 1,000 compared to 10.3 for Scotland) 1,389 deaths in the Scottish Borders (12.2 per 1,000 compared to 10.7 for Scotland) Age (Population (2015, National Records of Life Expectancy 2013-2015 (National Records of Scotland) Scotland)) Scottish Borders Scotland 15.5% of the Scottish Borders population is Male Female Male Female under the age of 15 (15.9% Scotland) At Birth 79.3 82.5 77.1 81.1 53.9% of the Scottish Borders population is At Aged aged 15 to 60 (59.9% Scotland) 65 18.1 20.5 17.3 19.6 30.5% of the Scottish Borders Population is Workplace Earnings in the Scottish Borders (Office of aged 60 or older (24.2% Scotland) National Statistics ASHE) Gender Gross Weekly Pay 2016 Gender Male Female Male Full-Time Workers = £472.3 (Scotland = £568.0) Age 0 to 15 51% 49% Female Full-Time Workers = £409.7 (Scotland = £482.6) Aged 15 to 60 49% 51% 60+ 47% 53% Total 48% 52% Disability Ethnicity (Scottish Survey Core Questions 2014) (Population 2015 National Records of Scotland) Scottish 30% of the Scottish Borders population have a Ethnicity Borders Scotland long term health condition (deaf or partially White: Scottish 73.6% 77.9% hearing impaired; blind or partially vision White: Other British 22.3% 13.1% impaired; learning disability; learning difficulty; White: Polish 0.9% 1.7% developmental disorder; physical disability; Asian 0.3% 2.3% mental health condition; or Other Long-term health condition) (2011 Census, Scotland = 30%) Other Ethnic Group 0.3% 1.1% LGBT (Scottish Borders Council – People Dept.) Religion (Scottish Survey Core Questions 2014) 67% of young people in the Borders said they Scottish know someone who is either: Lesbian, Gay, Religion Borders Scotland Bisexual or Transgender. None 47% 45% Church of Scotland 38% 29% 2.6% of adults identify as “LGB & Other” Roman Catholic 6% 15% (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Other) (Scotland = 1.6%) (Scottish Survey Core Questions 2014) Other Christian 9% 8% Other Religion 1% 3% Child Poverty (HMRC August 2014) Fuel Poverty (Scottish Household Survey 2015) 14.0% of Scottish Borders live in low income households; within the Scottish Borders there 43% of households in the Scottish Borders are in Fuel are 8 areas where 30% or more of the children Poverty (12% are in extreme fuel poverty). live in low income households. Languages in Schools (SBC Information System for Education SEEMIS) Over 40 different languages are spoken by children within Scottish Borders Schools
Hello English Nah-mah-stay Hindi Dzien dobry Polish Ciao Italian as-salām 'alaykum Arabic Guten tag German Bom-dia / Ola Portuguese Ni hao Chinese Zdravstvuite Russian Bonjour French Jambo Swahili Hola Spanish 7 Page 161 8 Page 162 Equalities and Scottish Borders Council’s Vision, Priorities and Standards
Scottish Borders Council’s Corporate Plan sets out the activities that are being prioritised over the five year period 2012/13 to 2017/18.
Scottish Borders Council’s Vision, which is contained in the Corporate Plan, is that:
‘We seek the best quality of life for all the people in the Scottish Borders; prosperity for our businesses and good health and resilience for all our communities.’
This Vision is underpinned by eight priorities:
Priority 1: Encouraging sustainable economic growth.
Priority 2: Improving attainment and achievement levels for all our children and young people, ensuring an inclusive approach. Priority 3: Providing high quality support, care and protection to children, young people, adults, families, and older people. Priority 4: Building the capacity and resilience of our communities and voluntary sector. Priority 5: Maintaining and improving our high quality environment.
Priority 6: Developing our workforce.
Priority 7: Developing our assets and resources.
Priority 8: Ensuring excellent, adaptable, collaborative and accessible public services.
Within the Corporate Plan there is also a set of standards:
Putting our customers and staff at the heart of what we do. Being fair, equal and open. Continually improving our services. Working with partners and stakeholders. Delivering value for money in the use of our resources.
Equalities and diversity were considered in both the development of these priorities and standards together with their implementation through plans, policies, processes, action and business plans and projects in line with the Council’s Equalities Vision:
‘We seek to embed equality, diversity and human rights into all Scottish Borders Council services, functions and business, enabling the organisation to demonstrate its explicit commitment to equality, diversity and human rights’
9 Page 163 The Legal Context
The Equality Act 2010 and the General Equality Duty
The Act brings together the areas of race, disability, sex, sexual orientation, religion and belief, age and gender reassignment, marriage/civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity in one legislative entity.
The Council as a public authority is subject to the requirements of the General Equality Duty and must have regard to this in the exercise of its functions.
There are three elements of the General Equality Duty:
Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation. Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not, by tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.
The Specific Equalities Duties
The Scottish Government has also prescribed further specific duties with which the Council must comply. These are contained in The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012 which came into force on 27th May 2012. These specific duties are designed to help Scottish public sector organisations meet the general duty effectively. The key legal duties are that the Council must:
Report on mainstreaming the equality duty. Publish equality outcomes and report progress. Assess and review policies and practices. Gather and use employee information. Publish gender pay gap information. Publish statements on equal pay. Consider award criteria and conditions in relation to public procurement.
There have been more specific changes in legislation since the production of the previous mainstreaming report which have brought changes to the Council’s responsibilities. These have been taken account of in the production of this Mainstreaming Report. This includes the requirements of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 and the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015.
The Scottish Government will be commencing consultation on a change to the law on transgender recognition. We will contribute to the consultation process and strive to adopt best practice on transgender issues.
10 Page 164 Building on Previous Work
Scottish Borders Council’s approach to mainstreaming Equality and Diversity work is underpinned by our initial Equality Mainstreaming Report 2013 – 2017 and the Equalities Mainstreaming Update Report 2013-2015.
The Council has built upon the approach taken in our previous equality schemes: The Race Equality Scheme 2008-2011, Disability Equality Scheme 2009-2012, Gender Equality Scheme 2007-2010 and the Equality Scheme 2012–2016.
For a number of years Scottish Borders Council has placed a priority on meeting our equality duties through our work, policies and attitude. The Council looks to continually improve and extend this through our mainstreaming approach to ensure that not only are we fully compliant with current legislation but that we meet the needs of our customers and clients together with our diverse community and workforce.
The Importance of Mainstreaming Equality
Mainstreaming equality simply means integrating equality and diversity into the day-to-day workings of our organisation. We aim to do this by taking equality into account as we exercise our functions and deliver our services.
Mainstreaming equality has a number of benefits:
It helps us to ensure that our services are fit for purpose and meet the needs of our community. It helps us attract and retain a productive workforce, rich in diverse skills and talents. It helps us work toward social inclusion and allows us to support the communities we serve to improve the lives of everyone who lives in the Borders. It helps us to continually improve and perform better through growing knowledge and understanding.
Scottish Borders Council’s Equality Mainstreaming Approach
Scottish Borders Council published a Mainstreaming Update Report in April 2015. This made a number of specific recommendations based on a self-evaluation of our work on equalities.
These were that all service areas would: • Establish equality duty performance indicators. • Be aware of the need to implement Corporate Equality & Diversity Policies.
11 Page 165 • Use the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) process when carrying out core business functions and have officers trained in the current EIA process and requirements.
It was recognised that a fundamental component of mainstreaming the equality duty is to incorporate it into core business functions of the Council and that it was important to continue with this work.
The recommendations of the Report also stated that there was a need to:
• Develop our monitoring and evaluation protocols. • Improve the number of service areas who are correctly conducting the EIA process and publishing the results on the website and Ensure Human Resources (HR) continues to consider how to improve the information the Council holds for each of the protected characteristics and that equalities data is specifically gathered in relation to Recruitment; Grievance and Disciplinary procedures and training.
Work is still ongoing with individual service areas to take forward these recommendations with a particular focus on business planning and implementing the Equality Impact Assessment Processes. There are a number of examples below of good practice in Council services.
Public Procurement
Equality clauses are built into the tendering and purchasing processes at the Council. Contracts and processes contain terms which ensure non-discrimination and encourage activity with *Third Sector and **Supported Businesses. These clauses are monitored via contract management over the life of the relationship with the Supplier. The Council’s Procurement service has an “Adding Value to Communities through Procurement” policy which aims to provide additional benefit beyond the core purpose of a contract opportunity to help maximise the impact of our spending on the local community. This is achieved through the inclusion of specific clauses in contracts known as community benefit clauses. 15 | P ag e *Third Sector also referred to as the Voluntary or Community Sector 15 | P ag e **Support Businesses must have the primary aim of the social and professional integration of 15 | P ag e disabled and disadvantaged people and 30% of the workforce must be are disabled or disadvantaged.
Scottish Borders Council Financial Services
In the Council’s Financial Services the use of the *Dialogue community engagement tool feedback as well as engagement with service managers ensures that equality issues are considered as part of the financial planning process. Equalities are also considered as part of the corporate Business Planning process. The Finance team are leading the process to ensure the appropriate use of Equality Impact Assessments within the Financial Planning process. This has been successfully undertaken over the past two years and we built on embedding the process during the 2017/18 financial planning.
12 Page 166 Financial Services have supported a number of disabled staff by ensuring appropriate furniture and equipment is in place to allow staff to operate as effectively as possible.
* Dialogue is an online public engagement/consultation tool which enables members of the public to post their suggestions in response to questions and rate those that others have posted
Scottish Borders Council Audit and Risk Service
The Audit and Risk service demonstrates the Council’s commitment to embedding equality perspective into the everyday work of the Council and its workforce policies and practices by: The employment of a Modern Apprentice who was recruited in November 2015. This ensures the workforce profile is more representative of the Borders general population. All team members have completed the mandatory training on equalities; All staff have completed their Professional Review and Development to ensure clear objectives and learning and development plans; The operation of inclusive workforce practices with examples of redeployment, secondment and flexible working within the team. The Chief Officer Audit & Risk, as part of the Head of Internal Audit role to be champion for sound governance, led the process to review, revise and gain approval by full Council in May 2016 of the updated SBC Local Code of Corporate Governance. This sets out the framework for the conduct of its affairs and brings together an underlying set of legislative requirements, governance principles and management processes. The Local Code reflects the Council’s equalities duties, where appropriate, including consideration of the equalities impact on decision-making.
13 Page 167 Progress on Scottish Borders Council’s Equality Mainstreaming Report 2013-17
Scottish Borders Council’s initial Equality Mainstreaming Report (2013-2017) contained eight outcomes.
These outcomes cover internal matters relating to employees; the Council’s approach to its customers; democratic and public involvement and participation; and the reduction of inequalities across the Scottish Borders. There is also a particular requirement to have an outcome for Education and this is included within the set of outcomes.
The eight outcomes are shown below. A summary is given of the work that has been undertaken to progress each outcome together with more detailed examples. More detail of our performance in relation to these outcomes is shown in Appendix 1 and the detailed progress made in relation to Education and its outcome is shown in the Section below, “Mainstreaming the Equality Duty in Education.”
Outcome 1 - We are seen as an inclusive equal opportunities employer where all staff feel valued and respected and our workforce reflects our community.
To tackle this Outcome a lot of work is being undertaken by Scottish Borders Council, through training and awareness sessions with staff; the development of a ‘people’ planning process; improvements in workforce equalities and diversity data which has involved the commissioning of a new HR system as part of the Council’s Digital Transformation Programme; and the launch in 2014 of a Work Opportunities Scheme.
Highlights in relation to our performance against this Outcome include: an increase in Council employees who identify as disabled and who identify as LGBT; 62 people engaged in the Work Opportunity Scheme across the Council in 2015/16 (38.71% male, 61.29% female).
SVQ Qualification I have always had problems with reading and writing as I am severely dyslexic. I left school with no qualifications but went straight into work in the hotel trade. I have always told my employers about my problem and managed to do my job with the help of colleagues and my manager. It was my manager who suggested contacting Margaret at the Big Plus at Peebles Community Centre who got me started on my learning and then arranged for Alison to tutor me. I came to work for Scottish Borders Council 7
14 Page 168 years ago at Dunwhinny Care Home. Again, I let staff know about my difficulties and they supported me to do my job and continue my learning. After a couple of years, it became clear that I would have to do my SVQ 2 in Care which was going to be a major challenge for me and something I was going to need a lot of help with. I really wanted to do it as I knew I had the knowledge I needed but getting it down on paper was going to be a real challenge.
I applied to Access to Work for funding for a support tutor to help me through my SVQ and Alison was happy to take up the role. My Line Manager, Linda, was very supportive and put me forward for my SVQ which I was accepted to do. The SVQ Assessor, Malcolm, met me to discuss what my difficulties were and see what he could do to help. He invited me and my tutor to come and sit in on some sessions with a previous group so we could see what it would involve. Malcolm then arranged for all materials to be printed on blue paper and in larger print to make it easier for me to read. He helped me with the reading necessary for the e-learning modules and took my first answers to complete the course so I could show my knowledge. I also got to meet some really good people in my SVQ group who supported me and made me feel really welcome and part of the team.
I feel great now that I have got my certificate for doing my SVQ. My confidence has grown and I love doing more courses at work. I am more aware of what is happening at work and am more confident in my role. I have also become a member of Peebles Community Council, which I would not have dreamed of doing before and am continuing to improve my computer skills at Open Doors in Peebles. My advice to anyone thinking of studying for an SVQ is don’t give up, you can do it, because there is help there for you and you will be so proud of yourself once you have done it. Chris Forsyth
Outcome 2 - Our services meet the needs of, and are accessible to all members of our community and our staff treat all services users, clients and colleagues with dignity and respect.
To make progress in this Outcome work has included making services more accessible by the launch of a new Council website which has been designed to work on more devices e.g. smart phones and tablets; developing community engagement and co-production toolkits which give the local population a more active role in the development of policy and are actively being used in consultations and the development of new services; the inclusion of an equality clause in the Council’s procurement process; surveying service users across many areas of Council services; carrying out the Scottish Borders Household Survey in 2015 (and preparing for another Survey in 2017) and acted upon the main issues raised; establishing a process to support Council services with interpretation and translation; and further developing our customer portal offering more services online for example housing benefits.
Highlights in relation to our performance against this Outcome include: better engagement with members of the public in the Council’s surveys and consultations (over 1400 responded to the waste survey in 2016 and health and social care events held in 2016 were well attended across the Scottish Borders); the increased reach and use of social media with over 12,500 Facebook and over
15 Page 169 9000 Twitter followers at the end of September 2016; engagement by specific services : 80% of surveyed users of Social Work Services stated that they were satisfied with the design of their care in September 2015 and 96% of Welfare Benefits Service clients saying they would use the service again, and 88% stating that the service had made a positive difference in their life.
Borderline Helpline
The service regularly supports people isolated in their own homes due to various mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. These people struggle to access services out with the home. The service supports and offers the same service to any adult of any age living in the Scottish Borders and often provides support for people who are experiencing difficulties with faith issues.
Parents of Children and Young People with Complex Needs
With the support and co-ordination of Scottish Borders Council’s Complex Needs Team, the bus Bertie (a mobile unit providing a therapeutic environment for children and young people aged 0-18 years with additional support needs and disabilities) visited targeted locations in the Scottish Borders to enable easier access and meet the needs of families. There is regular engagement with two local groups, Border’s Additional Needs Groups and Border’s Asperger’s & Autism Group (BAAG) with invitations extended to these groups to a number of events. BAAG is also linked in to the Autism Strategy group.
Outcome 3 - Everyone has the opportunity to participate in public life and the democratic process.
To support this Outcome our work has included: Working with Youth Borders and our primary and secondary schools we have carried out a range of young people’s participation initiatives including the Scottish Youth Parliament; Supporting engagement with the public and community involvement through the five Local Area Forums; and engaging with equality groups such as Disability groups, the Borders Equality Forum, Scottish Borders LGBT Equality, Gypsy/Travellers, the Polish community through the Saturday Polish School in Hawick, employment and community engagement events, and support for International days held in various towns including Galashiels, Eyemouth and Hawick.
Performance highlights include the youth engagement work undertaken by Youth Borders being recognised as ‘very good’ within the recent inspection of Children and Young People’s Services undertaken by the Care Inspectorate in 2016; the success of the Community Resilience Initiative with 37 community councils now having a Resilient Communities Plan; and the localities work being undertaken to engage communities as demonstrated by the draft plan for the Cheviot area (Jedburgh and Kelso).
16 Page 170 Information sessions on life as a Councillor
In preparation for the local government elections to be held on Thursday 4th May 2017 two information sessions were held for anyone considering standing for election as a Scottish Borders councillor. The events looked at the role of a councillor and the Council’s operation.
The first session focused on what councillors do, while the second session provided information on the practical reality of life as a councillor.
Young involved in decision making across Education Services
Opportunities for engagement between young people and Senior Officers and Elected Members have increased with the significant development of the election of two young people as non-voting members of the Education Executive Committee.
This proposal was approved by the Education Executive in January 2015 and two young people were elected to these positions through their School Pupil Councils.
They have attended committee meetings and have actively participated in the discussions to provide the views of young people on the business being discussed. They have engaged well with the Elected Members.
A reference group with representation from each of the secondary schools has been established and receive updates on the business discussed at the Education Executive. This group increased their knowledge and understanding of democratic processes with a visit to the Houses of Parliament in 2016.
Another development has been the inclusion of senior pupils at the Children and Young People Department’s Head Teacher meetings. Head Teachers and Senior Education Officers have engaged very positively, finding the views of young people of great assistance in their decision making particularly in areas of future policy. There is direct evidence of this influencing the decisions made, for example a proposal to end prelim exams in one school was rejected following consideration of the views of the senior pupils.
Gypsy Traveller Initiative
A Scottish Borders Council supported initiative to engage with gypsy travelers has been underway since June 2010. The initiative aims to make contact with gypsy and travelling people locating on unauthorised sites in the Scottish Borders. This involves an outside specialist appointed by Scottish Borders Council making contact with gypsies and travellers when they arrive in the Scottish Borders.
17 Page 171 The specialist engages with the gypsy/travelling community and asks about the services they may need and length of time they plan to stay for. This information is then passed on to other Council Services and agencies including Lothian and Borders Police and NHS Borders.
The Scottish Government’s 2016 Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping by Gypsy/Travellers in Scotland includes two case studies of good practice from Scottish Borders Council: The ‘Guide for Gypsy/Travelling People Staying on Unauthorised Sites in the Scottish Borders’ is provided to gypsy/travellers who stay on unauthorised sites that are owned by the Council. This sets out the services available to them and their responsibilities whilst staying on the site; and the approach taken by the Council to support the St. Boswells community in the management of the St. Boswells Fair.
Outcome 4 - We work in partnership with other agencies and stakeholders to ensure that our communities are cohesive and there are fewer people living in poverty.
To address this Outcome the work of Scottish Borders Council has included the development with Community Planning partners of a Scottish Borders Reducing Inequalities Strategy which provides the framework for improving economic and social inclusion in the region. Other areas of progress include the support for the development of Early Years centres in primary schools in disadvantaged areas; the major efforts made with partners to maximise the uptake of welfare benefits; the development of the Scottish Borders Child Minders Scheme; and the establishment of a Family Information web-site.
Key performance examples are: over £8.6 million of benefit gains that have been secured for service users in 2015/16 including £1.7 million secured for people affected by cancer; fewer children in poverty in the Scottish Borders (10.9%) than the national rate of 15.3%.
In the Scottish Borders, it is estimated that 22% of households live in fuel poverty and 12% live in extreme fuel poverty, compared with 20% in Scotland living in fuel poverty and 7% living in extreme fuel poverty (Fuel Poverty Activity Annual Update 2013-2014).
The rural nature of the area, the type of housing and the high proportion of elderly households, contributes to higher levels of fuel poverty than the Scottish average.
In relation to tackling fuel poverty the aims of the Council and its partners are to:
Improve the understanding of fuel poverty in the Scottish Borders in order that the Council can improve targeting of services. Provide ongoing fuel poverty advice and information to households in all tenures. Increase energy and fuel efficiency of housing in all tenures.
18 Page 172 Reduce the number of low income households living in fuel poverty.
To meet these aims the Council has a Home Energy Advice Service which has been operational since January 2005. This provides energy advice to households through telephone enquiries, home visits and presentations.
The Council and its partners have also been heavily involved in supporting the delivery of the Scottish Borders Energy Efficiency Schemes which between 2011 and 2015 have resulted in 8,422 installed measures across 5,842 households according to a report on the Schemes by Changeworks in 2015.
Scottish Borders Council Welfare Benefits Service
The Welfare Benefits Service provides advice to vulnerable families across the Scottish Borders to maximise benefits for families with young children. Amongst other venues, an officer attends local Bumps 2 Babies events and the four Early Years Centres to provide benefits and tax credits advice.
Scottish Borders Council was chosen by the Scottish Government to take part in a pilot scheme in which extended Early Years provision is provided at Philiphaugh Primary School. This includes provision during the school holidays, assisting working parents. The pilot is currently due to run until August 2017 but there are hopes that it will be extended.
An initiative, being trialled with midwives in the Hawick area, ensures that with the expectant mother’s permission a referral is made to the Welfare Benefits Service for advice on income maximisation. This is done by a clinic sticker being placed on a template and returned by post to the Welfare Benefits Service by the midwives. This system is proving to work well with an increasing number being referred. Once this initiative has been evaluated, it is hoped that with the co-operation of midwives, it can be extended to other areas.
A Welfare Benefits Service letter offering parents an income maximisation check is provided to all parents within the ‘New Arrival Pack’ issued by Registrars. This letter has a tear off reply slip for parents to complete if they wish to proceed with a check as well as a prepaid reply envelope and e-mail details.
In addition to ongoing work in the Early Years Centre, the Welfare Benefits Officer for the Hawick area has also delivered advice sessions for parents in the Burnfoot Family Centre and Burnfoot School.
The service is currently exploring ways in which income maximisation and financial inclusion services, which are currently delivered to Parents in the Early Years Centres, can be replicated and provided to parents in rural towns and villages across the Borders. An initial pilot will focus on three rural areas, Newtown St. Boswells, Earlston and Jedburgh.
The work will involve identifying and engaging with local community groups, parent and toddler groups, playgroups, nurseries, primary schools as well as
19 Page 173 Health visiting teams in the area.
Over the course of the year, the service has:
Worked closely with the Early Years Welfare Benefits Assistant and Citizens Advice to ensure the delivery of benefits and debt advice within the centres. Facilitated a Money Advice Scotland, financial capability train the trainer course. Developed a “Christmas for less” programme.
In 2016 the Early Years worker has achieved income gains of £920,000 and dealt with 195 referrals.
Scottish Borders Council Unite against Hate
Scottish Borders Council commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day on 27th January to raise awareness of genocide; the acts of hate that lead to it and asking how life can go on after such an atrocity.
The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust recognises the need to learn lessons from the past that will help to create a better and safer future for everyone.
The small exhibition which took place in the Council Headquarters included activities, a display of life stories and other resources for staff members. One activity involved asking staff members to identify religious flags in an attempt to widen cultural learning and all flags represented different groups that have been victims of genocide.
There are ten recognised steps to genocide, one of the first steps being discrimination. Therefore, the main focus of the day was collecting staff pledges to ‘stand up to hate and fight discrimination’ inside of work and out. In total 82 staff members proudly signed this pledge.
Outcome 5 - Our citizens have the freedom to make their own choices and are able to lead independent, healthy lives as responsible citizens.
To aspire towards this Outcome a range of initiatives have been undertaken by the Council, most prominently the work with NHS Borders to establish the Borders Health and Social Care Partnership and the production of the Scottish Borders Health and Social Care Strategic Plan 2016-17. Other initiatives include: A Community Capacity Building Team has been set up to improve the health and well-being of older people. A project to promote a self-directed support approach for younger people. Engagement with disability groups. Support for young people through Drugs and Alcohol Services to address substance misuse.
20 Page 174 Key performance data includes: as at March 2016 72% of adults aged over 65 who receive care do so at home (as opposed to in a residential setting); 20.6% of adults are using Self-Directed Support to plan and manage their own care which is higher than the national rate; and survey results from September 2015 show 85% of Social Work service users saying that they feel safe.
Respite Care for Families with Children and Young People with Complex Needs
Scottish Borders Council commissions a residential respite resource providing respite care for children and young people with complex needs which is delivered by Aberlour. This includes a summer play scheme which is provided in three localities, for children and young people aged 8 – 18 years and this is available for families who are supported through Children & Families Social Work. This provides respite to families and a stimulating experience for children and young people with complex needs.
Community Transport Hub
A Scottish Borders Council Community Planning Partnership project known as “the community transport hub” was nominated for three Scottish Transport Awards in 2016. It won the award for accessibility project of the year. The hub provides a single point of contact for people who need to arrange transport (usually social cars operated by volunteers).The scheme is aimed at people who cannot use conventional public transport.
Community Capacity Team
The Community Capacity Team aims to improve the health and wellbeing of older people through establishing new activities, involving local people in developing services and creating an improved sense of community. The team supports community development and volunteering opportunities for older people and has promoted the development of intergenerational projects. This has increased knowledge of local activities, enabled people to feel more empowered, reduced loneliness and isolation and improved physical and mental health and wellbeing
Tackling domestic abuse On call services at weekends provide immediate support to domestic abuse victims. These services, together with groups run in the evenings for domestic abuse victims makes engagement and completion rates almost 100%
21 Page 175 Ability Borders
Ability Borders, which is supported by Scottish Borders Council, is an information and signposting service for people in the Borders with a physical disability or long term health condition. The service is commissioned by the Council and NHS Borders and has been operating for one year. The service aims to provide a collective voice for people to help improve information and support and will provide short term support to co-produce new forms of support identified by individuals with a physical disability. Following a series of information events the organisation is responding to feedback, for example, to co-produce a Diabetes support group.
Outcome 6 - The difference in rates of employment between the general population and those from underrepresented groups is improved.
To make progress on this Outcome, Scottish Borders Council has taken forward a number of programmes and projects including the Council’s Employment Support Service; the implementation of the Developing the Young Workforce Initiative which is improving links between schools and businesses; and the development of the Modern Apprenticeship Scheme within the Council which is providing training and vocational opportunities for young people.
Key performance data shows that: the employment rates of both men and women (16-64 years) have increased since 2013/14 but the rate for women is still lower than men (a male employment rate of 80.3% compared to a female employment rate of 73.5% in 2015/16); the employment rate for ethnic minorities has increased from 48.6% in 2013/14 to 64.5% in 2015/16; and the employment rate amongst those who have a work-limiting disability was 54.4% in 2015/16 as against the overall rate of 76.8%.
Supported Employment
In April 2013, Scottish Borders Council established a corporate Employment Support Service to improve the performance of the Council in relation to providing supported employment and working towards a workforce more representative of the general population.
The Employment Support Service also seeks employment opportunities out with the Council.
Project SEARCH
Project SEARCH is a one year transition programme which provides training and education leading to employment for individuals with a learning disability or autism. Each individual applies to the programme and a selection process takes place. The programme is based on a partnership that includes a business (NHS Borders), a training organisation (Borders College) and a supported employment organisation (Scottish Borders Council- Employment Support Service). The goal
22 Page 176 is to provide on-site internship experiences in order for young adults with learning disabilities to acquire necessary skills leading to competitive employment.
Outcome 7 - The difference in educational attainment between those who are from an equality group and those who are not is improved.
This is dealt with in more detail in a later section of this Report, “Mainstreaming the Equality Duty in Education but in terms of general attainment, the Scottish Borders scores above the Scottish average and there has been a positive trend over the last three years for attainment results particularly in achievement levels for 6th year pupils. In terms of positive destinations, there are more young people in the Scottish Borders going on to a positive destination on leaving school compared with the average across Scotland and more school leavers remain in a positive destination when followed up at 6 months than the Scottish average.
The attainment levels of our most vulnerable young people are improving with the Scottish Borders moving from the fourth to the second quartile nationally. Improving attainment for all learners and particularly those from targeted areas is a key priority for the Education Service and a significant piece of work will be progressed over the next 3 years through the Closing the Gap programme to ensure all children and young people achieve their potential.
Over the last three years, 50% or more of the adult learners that completed a learning opportunity provided by Scottish Borders Council thought it had achieved increased skills, confidence and health and well-being.
Support for Speakers of Other Languages
Scottish Borders Council’s Community, Learning & Development Workers deliver a range of community based adult learning work to a range of adults. This includes support for adults in learning English where this is not a first language. For several years this has been enhanced with groups for parents where English is not the first language. These have been held in a range of locations to provide additional support and community interaction for the participants. They have often been based within a school, introducing parents to the school and providing input on local activities to meet specific need. Such groups can be established quickly to meet requirements. In 2015/16 to date, there have been a total of 65 adults who have completed an “English for speakers of other languages” course.
Hawick High School support and host a Polish school which is part funded by Scottish Borders Council. This supports Polish pupils of all ages and their families from all areas of the Borders every Saturday. Pupils undertaking SQA qualifications have been supported as well as GCSE Polish. A support group for speakers of other languages also runs in the school at lunchtimes.
23 Page 177 Outcome 8 - We have appropriate accommodation which meets the needs of our diverse community.
To progress this Outcome work undertaken by Scottish Borders Council and its partners has included the embedding of equalities in the development of a refreshed Local Housing Strategy; in 2015/16, 220 affordable houses were built and 95 households were assisted with disabled adaptation.
We have also established Bridge Homes which is a Limited Liability Partnership wholly owned by the Council to address housing supply issues in the Scottish Borders.
We are assessing the need for extra care housing and developing a delivery framework to assist the housing needs of disabled and older people.
Registered Social Landlords have been successful in securing funding. During 2015/16 the Council used its Second Homes/Council Tax budget to assist the delivery of affordable housing by contributing to developments at Lilliesleaf, Peebles and Hawick.
Migrants Support Group
The Migrants Support Group is a long standing inter-agency group which promotes the integration of migrant workers and their families into the Scottish Borders. The Group has recently taken positive actions to address issues between communities in one area. It was found that issues were related to housing rather than between the communities themselves and action has been taken to remedy these. The Group is currently considering the best ways to work with community members to further enhance community cohesion.
Support for Syrian Refugees
Scottish Borders Council is committed to supporting the Syrian Vulnerable Families Refugee Resettlement programme. This work has been developed by the Council leading a multi-agency planning group involving key partners including Housing, Health, Police, Fire and Rescue, and representatives of the voluntary sector. Two Syrian families who reside in the Scottish Borders have been involved in supporting and advising on the development of the programme. Registered Social Landlords have supported the plan and have identified appropriate Housing. There are now four Syrian refugee families located in the Scottish Borders.
24 Page 178 Mainstreaming the Equality Duty in Education
The equality duty is embedded within the delivery of Education Services and the work of the Children & Young People’s Leadership Group which reports into the Scottish Borders Community Planning Partnership.
The Curriculum for Excellence is well developed within Scottish Borders schools. Health and Wellbeing is a central pillar within the curriculum. The four capacities within Curriculum for Excellence set out how children and young people will develop holistically as successful learners, effective contributors, responsible citizens and confident individuals as well as developing skills of learning, life and work.
All young people in educational settings learn about wellbeing and they are being supported to develop the knowledge, understanding, skills, capabilities and attributes they need for their own emotional, social and physical wellbeing both now and in the future.
The continued implementation and development of the Curriculum for Excellence within our schools and our partnerships is now impacting upon attainment levels of all children and young people and there is a continuing trend of higher levels of attainment in numeracy and literacy. There is also a positive trend in the number of young people leaving school and achieving a positive destination. The attainment of young people living in deprivation has improved, particularly for young people living in specific areas.
Work in schools has been enriched through the embedding of the Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) approach within the Council’s Education service to ensure young people are safe, healthy, achieving, nurtured, active, respected, responsible and included, achieving their unique potential and making a positive contribution to society.
Our schools are committed to ensuring children and young people achieve and delivering the best outcomes for all children, recognising that for some who are more vulnerable and face a range of challenges they will require additional support to reach their goals. There have been some recent successes in terms of improved attainment for young people who live in the most deprived areas, however ensuring that there is a further reduction in the attainment gap is a key priority across the Service. The introduction of the Pupil Equity Fund, which will give additional funding of £1.8 million per annum over the next three years, enables Head Teachers to build in targeted approaches to supporting more vulnerable children and young people in their schools and deliver improvements for all. Another key priority is supporting children and young people with additional support needs and Service Managers are currently exploring innovative approaches to ensure that these children and young people are supported to achieve their best outcomes.
Sustained partnership working will continue to underpin the delivery of the Education Service and partner agencies will work in collaboration to ensure that support is available at the right time. The recent restructure within Children & Young People’s Services brings together all services for children
25 Page 179 and young people within Scottish Borders Council. This has created a tremendous opportunity to make connections and take a holistic approach to meeting the needs of children and young people. Closer working has already resulted in significant improvements in the number of exclusions across schools in 2016 and attendance in Scottish Borders schools has continued to be above the Scottish average.
Scottish Borders Council leads the Children and Young People’s Leadership Group (CYPLG). The CYPLG is a key partnership group within the Scottish Borders Community Planning Partnership. The CYPLG which includes membership from NHS Borders, Police Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration and the third sector, is committed to improving the wellbeing of all children and young people across the Scottish Borders and GIRFEC is embedded in its work. The CYPLG focuses on shared priorities to deliver meaningful and sustainable improvements to the lives of all our children and young people, particularly the most vulnerable.
The Children and Young People’s Leadership Group sets the strategic direction for the planning and delivery of services for children and young people. The Group is responsible for identifying challenges and mitigating risks setting out its priorities in the Scottish Borders Integrated Children & Young People’s Plan (2015 – 2018). This work is supported by a set of sub groups:
The Early Years Group is responsible for the Early Years Strategy and related actions to enable children to have the best possible start in life. This includes support for families before birth up to 8 years of age. The Children and Young People’s Planning Group is responsible for improving outcomes and reducing inequalities for all young people aged 8-18 years (25 for looked after young people). The Commissioning Group leads all multi-agency commissioning activities initiated to improve outcomes for children and their families. It seeks to ensure that GIRFEC is firmly embedded within all commissions and to work in partnership and collaboratively with service providers.
The Integrated Children & Young People’s Plan 2015- 2018 sets out the strategic direction for joint services. This has its vision that ‘All children and young people in the Scottish Borders will achieve their unique potential’. The Plan has five key priorities:
Keeping children and young people safe. Promoting the health and wellbeing of all children and young people and reducing health inequalities. Improving the wellbeing and life chances for our most vulnerable children and young people. Raising attainment and achievement for all learners. Increasing participation and engagement.
26 Page 180 These priorities are aimed at delivering the following outcomes:
More children and young people will be protected from abuse, harm or neglect and will be living in a supportive environment, feeling secure and cared for. Inequalities in the health and wellbeing of young people are reduced. The life chances of the most vulnerable children in the Borders are improved. Inequalities in educational outcomes and attainment between the most and the least deprived children across the Borders are reduced. More children and young people are equipped with the knowledge and skills to proceed to adult working life. All children and Young People will be encouraged to be involved in the planning, provision and delivery of services and their rights proactively considered.
A set of service actions are contained within the Plan focused on these priorities and outcomes. The delivery of services in relation to these actions, are underpinned by a set of principles. These are as follows:
• Focusing on early intervention and prevention; ensuring we target families early enough. • Ensuring that children and families’ needs are at the centre of service design and delivery. • Ensuring reducing inequalities is a priority across all services but that we get an appropriate balance between resourcing targeted and universal services. • Improving integrated working and focusing on combined resources • Working with and empowering communities. • Improving outcomes for every child and their families' highest achievers.
The Education service is confident that they have incorporated meeting the equality duties within their monitoring and evaluation frameworks There are a number of examples of good Equalities practice in Education which are outlined below.
LGBT Youth Borders
The LGBT Youth Borders service is supported by the CYPLG. It aims to increase LGBT young people’s confidence and self-esteem, improve their physical and emotional health; improve and support LGBT young people’s learning and reduce homophobia and transphobia in mainstream youth settings. The service provides support for young people across the Scottish Borders in a number of ways, including 1:1 support and group meetings as well as online and telephone support. A Support Worker provides input to a range of partner agencies such as schools and youth organisations to increase awareness and knowledge of LGBT issues and enhance universal support. A weekly group runs in Central Borders and there is a fortnightly group in Berwickshire.
27 Page 181 In 2015/16 LGBT awareness training was delivered to:
• A multi- agency group including Youth Workers, Health Improvement Practitioners, Third Sector Organisation Project Workers, Police Officers, Borders College Students’ Association, Teachers and Community Learning and Development workers. • Secondary School Teachers specifically on supporting transgender young people in Education. • The Children & Young People’s Planning Group (sub group of the Children & Young People’s Leadership Group). • S6 students at Earlston High School AND S6 students at Selkirk High School
Gay Straight Alliances have been created in the following secondary schools - Peebles High School, Berwickshire High School, Hawick High School and Selkirk High School. These provide a safe space for LGBT young people to meet.
Young Carers
Action for Children, which is supported by the CYPLG, provides a specific service supporting Young Carers from across the Scottish Borders. This ranges from support with emotional wellbeing through to practical help to resolve issues. The service provides 1:1 support tailored to meet individual needs as well as respite to alleviate the pressure of being a young carer and in addition group work enables young carers to share their experiences. Primarily focusing on direct support to young people aged 11 and over, the service also works with Primary Schools to build knowledge of the challenges facing children who may have a caring role to enable the provision of additional support through school.
In 2015 the service was runner up in the Scottish Public Service Awards and one of the young carers was named the first ever winner of The Annie Dow Heroism Award. In 2016, a project was established to raise awareness of Young Carers across the Primary Schools in the Scottish Borders. Drop in sessions have been established in one primary school where there are higher numbers of young carers to enable children to raise challenges they may be experiencing at home. A short life working group is also evaluating the implementation of the Young Carer’s Strategy 2015-18 and is developing examples of good practice where more informal support is provided for young carers across schools and other settings in the Scottish Borders.
Faith Matters
Peebles High School has created Soul Space which is available for students to visit at any time for quiet reflection with information on different religions and spirituality. An understanding and tolerance of all faiths is supported within the curriculum and there is an annual visit to a Mosque with an opportunity to increase knowledge. At key religious services e.g. Easter and Christmas, an alternative activity is arranged for those of different faiths or who do not have a faith. Hawick High School have a large faith group and whilst this is Christian
28 Page 182 based, it welcomes attendance from those of all faiths.
29 Page 183 Mainstreaming the Equality Duty as an Employer
Human Resources Policies and Practice
Scottish Borders Council remains committed to a culture which promotes equality and diversity and recognises the value added by a workforce with diverse backgrounds and experiences.
Crucial to this is maintaining robust equality data for employees.
The Council is introducing a new HR/ Finance system, Business World, from 1st April 2017. The system allows employees to enter and update their own equality data, either at work via their personal computer or at home through the internet. This gives the best opportunity to ensure that equality data is as comprehensive and up to date as possible.
The Business World system also enables employees to request annual and special leave, complete timesheets and book training. It will be a one stop shop for employees.
Managers will have immediate access to HR data, such as absence statistics and information on disciplinary and grievance cases, allowing timely action to be taken to resolve any issues.
Since the publication of the Council’s initial Equality Mainstreaming Report we have undertaken a review of the Council’s HR Policies and Procedures. An Equality Impact Assessment has been carried out on each one to ensure they reflect best practice in equality and diversity. Where necessary or desirable policies have been altered to address this. HR Policies and Procedures are continually reviewed on a rolling two year programme. From April this will be linked to the Business World system.
We have introduced mediation to allow conflicts between employees to be resolved as expeditiously as possible. 7 of our staff have become accredited mediators through ACAS and a further 6 will undertake the relevant training in the next 2 months.
The Council’s Occupational Health service, provided by People Asset Management, allows us to find the right solutions for staff with medical issues.
This service, combined with action taken in terms of our Attendance Management policy, has seen a reduction in absences since 2015. We also provide an Employee Assistance Programme through P.A.M. Assist. This gives employees access to advice on a wide range of welfare and legal issues, and includes the provision of a course of counselling where appropriate.
In October 2015 a new Staff Benefits Scheme was launched.
This provides the following services: • Car Salary Sacrifice Scheme.
30 Page 184 • Technology Salary Sacrifice Scheme (open during windows throughout the year). • Shopping Discount Scheme. • Critical Illness Cover.
The Scheme has had a take up rate of just over 45%.
This is in addition to our existing benefits package, which includes options for flexible working, assisting those with caring responsibilities, and a Child Care voucher scheme, allowing employees to receive Child Care vouchers through a salary sacrifice scheme.
In partnership with NHS Borders, we have launched the Small Changes, Big Difference campaign in January 2017.
This campaign aims to provide guidance, information and a range of initiatives to support staff to improve their health and sense of wellbeing.
Details of the campaign can be accessed through a web portal and initiatives include giving staff who volunteer free access to a lifestyle advisor, and certain facilities of LiveBorders.
We continually consider how as a department we can best advise on equality and diversity and are looking at alternative ways in which this can be delivered.
We also engage with external partners and other agencies to ensure that we are up to date with developments and current thinking. This includes considering the obligations we will acquire later this year under the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015, and playing an active role in the Scottish Councils’ Equality Network.
Workforce Planning
It is vital that we have the right number of people with the right skills in the right place at the right time to allow us to deliver our organisational objectives, both short and long term.
To ensure this we have introduced a People Planning process across the Council. This is a systematic process which involves Supply Analysis, Demand (or Needs) Analysis and Gap Analysis taking into account internal and external changes.
This allows an analysis of the staffing profile, identity of what actions are required to deliver the service priorities in the short and longer term and whether there are any risks presented by the current staffing profile, such as age profile, gender, current skills, qualifications, pay grades, length of service, turnover, single points of failure.
Through this whole process we ensure that equality and diversity principles are applied to any strategies employed to ensure we are offering opportunities for all and taking account of any improvements that can be made. Typical strategies may include recruitment activities, consideration of alternative working patterns,
31 Page 185 identifying and addressing learning and development needs and the establishment of modern apprenticeships.
For a number of years, the Council subscribed to the two ticks scheme, which guaranteed an interview to job applicants with a disability provided they met the essential criteria for the post applied for.
That scheme has now been replaced by the new Disability Confident scheme and Scottish Borders Council has been accredited as a Disability Confident Employer.
Accreditation requires us to demonstrate we are taking a number of actions: • Actively seeking to attract and recruit disabled people. • Providing a fully inclusive and accessible recruitment process. • Undertaking to offer an interview to disabled people who meet the essential criteria for the job. • Showing flexibility when assessing people so that disabled people have the best opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. • Proactively offering and making reasonable adjustments as required. • Encouraging suppliers and partners to be Disability Confident. • Ensuring employees have appropriate disability equality awareness.
Our Employment Support Service continues to work towards our aim of a workforce representative of the population. During the year 2016 Sixty two people engaged in the Work Opportunities Scheme across the Council. (38.71% male, 61.29% female). Employment opportunities have been spread across the range of Council departments and services, for example administrative and technical posts, Adult Social Care and Human Resources.
Training & Development
Training and Development remains a key priority of the Council. We continue to make extensive use of the SB Learn e-learning platform as well as providing training courses.
To embed equalities and ensure we meet our priorities there are a number of mandatory courses for all staff:
• Information Management Awareness. • Information Security. • Equality and Diversity. • Child Protection. • Adult Protection. • Prevent.
We have also refreshed and updated our Induction checklists to ensure that new employees are given a thorough grounding in the ethos of the Council and are fully aware of their rights and obligations.
A large number of other courses are also available to staff, both online and through attendance. As well as courses directly related to Council policies and
32 Page 186 practices, we have recently introduced a range of courses for managers and aspiring managers, Leadership Matters. These are contained within three modules to suit the experience of all.
In the interests of staff wellbeing regular courses are held covering the development of Personal Resilience and Mindfulness.
Equal Pay Statement
Scottish Borders Council, as a council, constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 and as an education authority in terms of S.135 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, is committed to equal pay for all its employees and aims to eliminate any bias in relation to pay systems on any ground, including gender, disability, race, religion or belief, age or sexual orientation.
Our principle is that all employees receive equal pay for the same or broadly similar work, for work rated as equivalent, and for work of equal value. Scottish Borders Council operates and will continue to operate a pay and benefits system which is transparent, based on objective criteria, and free from bias.
Scottish Borders Council believes that in eliminating bias in its pay systems, it is sending a positive message to its employees and the Scottish Borders community. It makes good business sense to have fair and transparent reward systems and it also helps the Council to control costs.
Scottish Borders Council will identify and eliminate any unfair, unjust or unlawful practices that impact on pay as well as taking any appropriate remedial action.
Scottish Borders Council in supporting this commitment to equality in pay will:
examine existing and future pay practices for all employees to ensure that they comply with best equal pay practice and current legislation carry out regular monitoring of the impact of these practices consult on all changes to pay policy with employees’ trade union representatives inform employees of how these practices work and how their pay and benefits are arrived at provide training and guidance for those involved in making decisions about pay and benefits review progress every four years in accordance with our obligations in terms of the Equality Act 2010 and monitor pay statistics.
Gender Pay Gap
The gender pay gap is the difference between men and women’s full-time hourly earnings.
Using guidance and the standard calculation that is set out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Council’s equal pay gap was calculated using data as at 26th February 2017.
33 Page 187 The Standard Calculation is:
(a)/ (b) x 100 = Total 100 – Total = (c) (a)/ (b) = (c)
Where; (a) Average Hourly Rate for Women (b) Average Hourly Rate Men (c) Pay Gap
The average basic hourly pay (excluding overtime) between male and female employees has been calculated and further details have been outlined below:
The average hourly rate for women is £ 11.3009 (a) The average hourly rate for men is £ 12.8281 (b) The difference in hourly pay is £ 1.5272 This means that on average women earn 11.90% (c) less than men Whilst we believe our gender pay gap is related to the high number of female employees in lower pay grades, our gender pay gap is better than Scotland’s pay gap of 14.9% (Close the Gap,2016).
Whilst there is a gender pay gap of 11.90% for the Council overall we have further analysed the data based on the grades of individuals. This is shown in the following table: -
Grade Group Female Male Pay Gap National Minimum 6.0271 6.4038 5.88% Business Gateway 16.6807 16.7254 0.27% Grade 1 8.3300 8.3300 0.00% Grade 2 8.3459 8.5370 2.24% Grade 3 8.6125 9.2562 6.95% Grade 4 9.3127 9.6208 3.20% Grade 5 10.3199 10.8067 4.51% Grade 6 11.7805 12.5032 5.78% Grade 7 13.7929 14.0352 1.73% Grade 8 15.5358 15.7727 1.50% Grade 9 18.8143 18.8659 0.27% Grade 10 21.7821 21.9241 0.65% Grade 11 24.3421 25.0982 3.01% Grade 12 28.3054 28.2342 -0.25% Chief Officer 40.6711 44.1767 7.94% Overall 11.3009 12.8281 11.90%
The differential in rate is due to placing on scales. Each grade has a number of scale points with new employees being placed on the lowest point on the grade. All employees are then entitled to incremental progression after two years of service until they reach the top scale point for that grade. These are applied consistently regardless of any protected characteristics.
34 Page 188 The Council also reviewed pay for men and women in our Education Department. Further details have been outlined below:
The average hourly rate for females is £22.6202 (a) The average hourly rate for males is £ 23.9428 (b) The difference in hourly pay is £1.3226 This means that on average women in Education earn 5.52% (c) less than men.
The reasons for this difference include:
There are more female probationary teachers than male probationary teachers (73% are female). The salary for these new entrants is lower than that for experienced teachers. The General Teaching Council Scotland states that 78% of teachers and associated professionals 78% are female and 22% are male (General Teaching Council Scotland Statistics May 2016).
The Council’s statistics are broadly in line with these figures, 76% are female.
Whilst there is a gender pay gap of 5.52% for the Education we have further analysed the data based on the grades of individuals. This is shown in the following table: -
Grade Group Female Male Pay Gap Probationer 13.6267 13.6267 0.00% Common Scale 21.1369 21.0104 -0.60% Music Instructor 19.5493 20.2665 3.54% Chartered Teacher 25.2530 24.6850 -2.30% Principal Teacher 26.6870 27.4155 2.66% Psychologist 28.0374 29.8031 5.92% Depute and Head Teachers 31.3081 33.1689 5.61% Overall 22.6202 23.9428 5.52%
It can be argued that there are three main causes of the pay gap between men and women:
Occupational segregation. A lack of flexible working opportunities. Discrimination in pay and grading structures.
The Council’s job evaluation scheme provides a robust means of achieving a fair and transparent grading structure which is free from gender-bias and which satisfies the principles of equal pay for work of equal value. This is further validated by the grade table analysis shown above.
The Council also offers and provides a number of flexible working practices to employees at all levels, and we advertise our vacancies in a way that attracts the best person for the job, regardless of gender.
35 Page 189 We consider that the main efforts in addressing the gender pay gap are best directed to addressing the issue of occupational segregation.
We will also benchmark our gender pay gap against other public authorities.
Occupational Segregation
The Council recognises that occupational segregation, on the grounds of gender, racial group or disability, is one of the key barriers which prevent people from fulfilling their potential, and consequently contributes to the pay gap.
The Council recognises that by proactively addressing equality issues there is the potential to drive excellence in service delivery through more productive, loyal, and motivated employees who can bring a range and diversity of experience to their role to the benefit of the customers to whom we provide services.
There are a number of factors which influence and affect occupational segregation.
People may be drawn to occupations with a traditionally high concentration of people of the same gender or racial group. This can be due to familiarity with that occupation, or conformity with expectation.
There may also be a danger of employers stereotyping on the grounds of gender, race or disability and making assumptions about what roles or occupations people would excel at.
We address these factors through the provision of mandatory Equality and Diversity training for all employees, and seek to improve access to employment through the Modern Apprenticeships and other work opportunities we offer.
Our aim is to be an employer with whom people feel free to pursue their career path of choice regardless of gender, race or disability.
Of our 5,660 employees, 73% are female and 27% male.
Of those who have disclosed their ethnic origin, 0.39% identify as belonging to a minority racial group. (In accordance with the definition in the Equality Act, we have included the following categories within the definition of “minority racial group”: Asian/Asian British - Any Other; Asian/Asian British – Bangladeshi; Asian/Asian British - Chinese ; Asian/Asian British – Pakistani; Black/African/Caribbean/British – Car; Black/African/Caribbean/British – Other; Mixed/Multiple Ethnic Groups; Other Black Background; Other Ethnic Group).
2.37% have disclosed a disability.
Further analysis shows that;
More females than males are in the lower grades. In Grades 1-5, 75% of employees are women
More females than males are in the supervisory and technical grades,
36 Page 190 67% of grades 6-10 are female
In senior roles, of grades 11, 12 and Chief Officers 41%% are female. No employees in these grades have declared a disability.
The Council has significantly more teachers that are female than male teachers. 76% of our teachers are female. 2.38% of teachers have disclosed a disability.
The below provides further details of the Council’s data on occupational segregation, however it should be noted that due to the low level of numbers for employees who have declared a disability or identified as a black minority ethnic we only show the percentage as this may otherwise identify individuals. Consequently given these low numbers no sub levels of analysis have been included in the following tables.
Occupational segregation by Gender (non Education)
Table1 Chief SB Chief SB Gender Exec. People Place Cares Total Exec People Place Cares Total Female 205 1312 769 789 3075 71.18% 84.48% 49.20% 91.00% 72.00% Male 83 241 794 78 1196 28.82% 15.52% 50.80% 9.00% 28.00% Total 288 1553 1563 867 4271
Table 2 Gender Female Male Grand Total Female Male Business Gateway 75.00% 25.00% Chief Officer 15 11 26 57.69% 42.31% Grade 1 318 76 394 80.71% 19.29% Grade 2 108 165 273 39.56% 60.44% Grade 3 34 160 194 17.53% 82.47% Grade 4 1309 187 1496 87.50% 12.50% Grade 5 298 74 372 80.11% 19.89% Grade 6 305 131 436 69.95% 30.05% Grade 7 236 101 337 70.03% 29.97% Grade 8 161 84 245 65.71% 34.29% Grade 9 208 104 312 66.67% 33.33% Grade 10 42 41 83 50.60% 49.40% Grade 11 9 28 37 24.32% 75.68% Grade 12 13 14 27 48.15% 51.85% National Minimum Wage 16 19 35 45.71% 54.29% Total 3075 1196 4271
37 Page 191 Occupational segregation by Disability (non Education declared)
Table 3 Chief SB People Place Total Exec. Cares Disability 4.51% 2.19% 2.56% 1.61% 2.36%
Occupational segregation by Ethnic Group (non Education – declared)
Table 4
Chief SB People Place Total Exec Cares
Black Minority 0.35% 0.77% 0.13% 0.35% 0.42% Ethnic Total White Total 84.03% 85.13% 76.33% 77.28% 80.24%
Occupational Segregation by Gender (Education)
Table 5 Common Depute Chartered Scale and Head Music Principal Probationary Gender Teacher Teacher Teacher Instructor Teacher Teacher Psychologist Total Female 33 796 69 10 124 19 6 1057 Male 19 213 32 9 50 7 2 332 Total 52 1009 101 19 174 26 8 1389
Depute Chartered Common and Head Music Principal Probationary Gender Teacher Scale Teacher Teacher Instructor Teacher Teacher Psychologist Female 3.12% 75.30% 6.52% 0.94% 11.73% 1.79% 0.57% Male 5.72% 64.15% 9.63% 2.71% 15.06% 2.10% 0.60%
Occupational segregation by Disability (Education declared)
Table 6
Disability 2.38%
38 Page 192 Occupational segregation by Ethnic Group (Education declared)
Table 7
Black Minority Ethnic Total 0.29% White Total 67.89%
39 Page 193 The Way Forward for 2017-21
The review of the Council’s approach to the mainstreaming of equalities indicates that, while there are some successes such as new on line planning portal and on line reporting, there is still however a significant amount of work to be done in 2017-21 in order to mainstream equalities within the Scottish Borders and the Council.
It is considered that the recommendations contained within our Equality Mainstreaming Update Report published in April 2015 are still relevant and require to be followed through. These include the need to:
Continue the work in establishing effective performance indicators for Council services. • Ensure that the business plans for service areas fully embed equalities and equality outcomes. • Develop a continuing training programme on Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) for Council staff.
In addition there is a need:
To review the translation and interpretation scheme to ensure that it is effectively meeting the requirements of ethnic groups and that the Council is obtaining value for money from the existing arrangements. For Human Resources (HR) to continue to improve the information the Council holds for each of the protected characteristics in respect of employees.
It is also considered that it is appropriate to retain the eight existing equality outcomes for the period 2017-21 as they are aspirational and still relevant. These outcomes are:
We are seen as an inclusive equal opportunities employer where all staff feel valued and respected and our workforce reflects our community. Our services meet the needs of, and are accessible to all members of our community and our staff treat all services users, clients and colleagues with dignity and respect. Everyone has the opportunity to participate in public life and the democratic process. We work in partnership with other agencies and stakeholders to ensure that our communities are cohesive and there are fewer people living in poverty. Our citizens have the freedom to make their own choices and are able to lead independent, healthy lives as responsible citizens. The difference in rates of employment between the general population and those from underrepresented groups is improved. The difference in educational attainment between those who are from an equality group and those who are not is improved. We have appropriate accommodation which meets the needs of our diverse community.
40 Page 194 The actions to positively influence these outcomes will build on the planning processes and activities outlined above in this report and will continue to be monitored through performance indicators. The current performance indicators are shown in Appendix 1. A key task for 2017/18 is to make sure that the performance indicators used better reflect the outcomes.
To deliver on the Equalities Agenda for Education it is important that the service continues to link into the Council’s overall approach to equalities. It is also considered that the mainstreaming of equality will be progressed by its existing planning processes, particularly the Curriculum for Excellence, Developing the Young Workforce, the Accessibility Strategy and the Integrated Children and Young People’s Plan. More specifically it is planned that the Education service will adopt the LGBT Charter.
To take forward the actions a High level action plan 2017 - 2021 has been developed as shown below.
High Level Action Plan 2017 -2021
Scottish Borders High Level Actions Timescale Council Service Area Strategic Continue to deliver Equality Outcomes Continuous throughout the four year period. 2017 - 2021
Ensure that the business plans for Continuous service areas fully embed equalities and throughout the four equality outcomes year period. 2017 - 2021
Review the translation and 2017-2018 interpretation scheme to ensure that it is effectively meeting the requirements of ethnic groups and the Council is obtaining value for money from the existing arrangements
Meet our legislative duties under the British Sign British Sign Language (Scotland) Act Language Plan 2015 Published by October 2018
Participate in the national consultation in 2017 relation to possible legislative changes on transgender. Continued engagement with Equality Continuous groups throughout the four year period. 2017 - 2021
41 Page 195 Develop a calendar of events to promote Develop during 2017 diversity. for implementation from 2018 onwards
Improve the quality of communication on Continuous equality matters throughout the four year period. 2017 - 2021
Work more closely with Partners to Continuous embed equalities within the Community throughout the four Planning process year period. 2017 - 2021
Establish our obligations under the 2017 - 2018 Modern Slavery Act Explore a review of accessibility within 2018 - 2019 towns and settlements Continue the rolling programme of Continuous equality impact assessments on Service throughout the four policies year period .2017 - 2021
Continue to ensure that our Continuous Procurement and commissioning process throughout the four takes account of equality matters and year period. 2017 - builds equality and diversity obligations 2021 into Council contracts Review of the Corporate Equality 2017 Working Group Monitor complaints which raise equality/ Establish process diversity issues. 2017 for implementation 2018 Improve monitoring of equality clauses in 2018 Council contracts with external parties.
Review customer service training December 2017 package to ensure that it meets the ever changing accessibility and equality and diversity needs of SBC customers.
Build on and redevelop the training Staff 2017 programme on Equality Impact Elected Members Assessments (EIAs) for Council staff and 2018 elected members.
Build on and redevelop Equality & 2017 onwards Diversity training for Councillors
Human Resources Raise awareness of and completion rate 2017 onwards of Equalities e-learning.
Incentivise and encourage staff to 2017 onwards complete the equality data held within Business World to allow the Council to
42 Page 196 make improvements to the information held for each of the protected characteristics in respect of employees. Improve the content of training records 2017 onwards held within Business World to include applications, withdrawals and rejections for courses in addition to completions.
Gain approved accreditation under the December 2017 Disability Confident Scheme.
Rolling review programme of HR Policies Continuous and procedures throughout the four year period 2017 - 2021
Specific review of key policies following 2017 the introduction of the Business World System
Develop a corporate domestic abuse 2017 policy
Review of the whistle blowing policy 2017 within SBC with particular emphasis on support. Myjobscotland and supporting December 2017 recruitment materials to include all relevant equalities accreditations. Continuance of Positive recruitment Continuous campaign(s) targeting under throughout the four representative groups year period 2017 - 2021
Education Continue to implement equalities within Continuous existing planning processes particularly throughout the four the Curriculum for Excellence, year period. 2017 - Developing the Young Workforce, the 2021 Accessibility Strategy and the Integrated Children and Young People’s Plan Continue to collect information on the Continuous other protected characteristics to throughout the four establish how the data can be used to year period. 2017 - further the Equality Duty. 2021
Schools Equality Plans formulated 2017
Strengthened approach to homophobia 2017 and transgender issues including working towards adoption of the LGBT Charter.
Continue to ensure that policies and Continuous processes are Equality Impact Assessed throughout the four year period. 2017 - 2021
43 Page 197 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 2
Equality Outcomes Update 2013-2017
In terms of The Equality Act (2010) (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012, Scottish Borders Council is required to produce a set of equality outcomes which are informed by engagement with different equality groups and stakeholders. The Council set its Page 199 Page outcomes in 2013. These were designed to help it achieve its vision and meet the general equality duty; to eliminate discrimination and harassment; promote equality of opportunity and promote good relations.
Since the setting of our Equality Outcomes, Scottish Borders Council has undertaken a considerable amount of work to progress to achieving them. The tables below set out our equality outcomes and the indicators the Council uses to measure its progress towards achieving them.
Key: ↑ - Positive increase ↓ - Negative decrease ↑ - Negative increase ↓- Positive decrease → - Level Trend
Performance trend - where two arrows are shown, the first arrow compares 2012/13 against 2014/15; the second arrow compares 2014/15 against 2015/16
1 | P a g e Outcome 1: We are seen as an inclusive equal opportunities employer where all staff feel valued and respected and our workforce reflects our community.
Performance Information Performance PI Code PI Description 2012/13 2014/15 2015/16 Data Source Trend Human Resources (HR) Data Collection 1_1 % of our workforce aged 16 to 29 ↓↑ 10.38% 9.04% 9.42% % of our workforce who have declared a Human Resources (HR) Data Collection 1_2 ↑↓ disability 1.31% 2.58% 2.37% % of our workforce who have stated they are Human Resources (HR) Data Collection 1_3 ↑ LGBT 0.52% 0.73% 0.88%
1_4 Highest paid 2% who are women ↑ Human Resources (HR) Data Collection 36.60% 38.40% 52.94%
Page 200 Page 1_5 Highest paid 5% who are women ↑ Human Resources (HR) Data Collection 37.70% 41.00% 45.14% % of our workforce who are from an ethnic 1_6 ↓ HR Data Collection minority 2.80% 0.44% 0.39% No. of employees who engaged in the Work 1_7 ↑ No Baseline 53 62 Work Opportunities Scheme Recording opportunities Scheme 1_9 SBC: Investors in people Attainment → 100% 100% 100% HR Data Collection
To tackle this Outcome a lot of work is being undertaken by Scottish Borders Council, through training and awareness sessions with staff; the development of a ‘people’ planning process; improvements in workforce equalities and diversity data which has involved the commissioning of a new HR system as part of the Council’s Digital Transformation Programme; and the launch in 2014 of a Work Opportunities Scheme.
Highlights in relation to our performance against this Outcome include: in general an increase in Council employees who identify as disabled and who identify as LGBT; 62 people engaged in the Work Opportunity Scheme across the Council in 2015/16 (38.71% male, 61.29% female).
2 | P a g e Outcome 2: Our services meet the needs of, and are accessible to; all members of our community and our staff treat all services users, clients and colleagues with dignity and respect.
Performance Information Performance PI Code PI Description 2012/13 2014/15 2015/16 Data Source Trend % Of Disabled People who rate SBC as good or None (2013 64% 60% 2_1 ↓ Scottish Borders Household Survey excellent survey) (2013) (2015) % of Females who rate SBC as good or None (2013 67% 65% 2_2 ↓ Scottish Borders Household Survey excellent survey) (2013) (2015) None (2013 70% 60% 2_3 % of Males who rate SBC as good or excellent ↓ Scottish Borders Household Survey survey) (2013) (2015) % of People aged 50+ who rate SBC as good or None (2013 67% 62% 2_4 ↓ Scottish Borders Household Survey excellent survey) (2013) (2015)
Page 201 Page % of People under 50 who rate SBC as good or None (2013 68% 68% 2_5 → Scottish Borders Household Survey excellent survey) (2013) (2015)
To make progress in this Outcome work has included making services more accessible by the launch of a new Council web site which has been designed to work on more devices e.g. smart phones and tablets; developing community engagement and co- production toolkits which give the local population a more active role in the development of policy and are actively being used in consultations and the development of new services; the inclusion of an equality clause in the Council’s procurement process; surveying service users across many areas of Council services; carrying out the Scottish Borders Household Survey in 2015 (and preparing for another Survey in 2017) and acted upon the main issues raised; establishing a process to support Council services with interpretation and translation; and further developing our customer portal offering more services on line for example housing benefits.
Highlights in relation to our performance against this Outcome include: better engagement with members of the public in the Council’s surveys and consultations (over 1400 responded to the waste survey in 2016 and health and social care events held in 2016 were well attended across the Scottish Borders); the increased reach and use of social media with over 12,500 Facebook and over 9000 Twitter followers at the end of September 2016; engagement by specific services : 80% of surveyed users of Social Work Services stated that they were satisfied with the design of their care in September 2015 and 96% of Welfare Benefits Service clients saying they would use the service again, and 88% stating that the service had made a positive difference in their life. Outcome 3: Everyone has the opportunity to participate in public life and the democratic process.
Performance Information Performance PI Code PI Description 2012/13 2014/15 2015/16 Data Source Trend 56% 3_1 % turn out at local elections N/A N/A N/A Legal & Democratic Data Collection (2012) 18% 15% 3_2 % of Councillors who are female ↓ N/A Legal & Democratic Data Collection (2012) (2015) 85% 3_3 Number of Councillors who are male ↑ 82% (2012) N/A Legal & Democratic Data Collection (2015) 3_4 % of Female residents who were Fairly or Very 31% 42% 39% Scottish Borders Household Survey satisfied with the opportunities for ↑↓ participating in the local decision making (2011) (2013) (2015)
Page 202 Page process provided by Scottish Borders Council 3_5 % of male residents who were Fairly or Very 36% 49% 38% Scottish Borders Household Survey satisfied with the opportunities for ↑↓ participating in the local decision making (2011) (2013) (2015) process provided by Scottish Borders Council 3_6 % of disabled residents who were Fairly or 32% 36% 36% Scottish Borders Household Survey Very satisfied with the opportunities for ↑→ participating in the local decision making (2011) (2013) (2015) process provided by Scottish Borders Council 3_7 % of Older (50+) residents who were Fairly or 46% 41% Scottish Borders Household Survey Very satisfied with the opportunities for ↓ Not Available participating in the local decision making (2013) (2015) process provided by Scottish Borders Council % of Younger Work Age (under 50) residents 46% 34% who were satisfied with the opportunities for 3_8 ↓ Not Available Scottish Borders Household Survey participating in the local decision making (2013) (2015) process provided by Scottish Borders Council
5 | P a g e To support this Outcome our work has included: Working with Youth Borders and our primary and secondary schools we have carried out a range of young people’s participation initiatives including the Scottish Youth Parliament; Supporting engagement with the public and community involvement through the five Local Area Forums; and engaging with equality groups such as Disability groups, the Borders Equality Forum, Scottish Borders LGBT Equality, Gypsy/Travellers, the Polish community through the Saturday Polish School in Hawick, employment and community engagement events, and support for International days held in various towns including Galashiels, Eyemouth and Hawick.
Performance highlights include the youth engagement work undertaken by Youth Borders being recognised as ‘very good’ within the recent inspection of Children and Young People’s Services undertaken by the Care Inspectorate in 2016; the success of the Community Resilience Initiative with 37 community councils now having a Resilient Communities Plan; and the localities work being undertaken to engage communities as demonstrated by the draft plan for the Cheviot area (Jedburgh and Kelso).
Outcome 4: We work in partnership with other agencies and stakeholders to ensure that our communities are cohesive and there are fewer people living in poverty.
Page 203 Page Performance Information Performance PI Code PI Description 2012/13 2014/15 2015/16 Data Source Trend % of total population who are income 10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 4_1 → ScotPho Profiles deprived (2011) (2013) (2014) % of working age population who are 9.1% 9.3% 9.3% 4_2 ↑→ ScotPho Profiles employment deprived (2011) (2013) (2014) 12.2% 12.3% 14.0% 4_3* % of Children in Low Income Families ↑ HMRC (2012) (2013) (2014) % of population aged 60 and over claiming 8.6% 5.8% 4.5% 4_4 ↓ ScotPho Profiles pension credits. (2010) (2013) (2015) Neighbourhood priority rate ranking: tackling 12th 3rd 3rd Scottish Borders Household Survey 4_5 ↑→ Poverty and Inequality is most important issue (2010) (2013) (2015) % of females who feel safe to walk in their 73% 73% 4_6 → Scottish Borders Household Survey local area after dark (2013) (2015) % of males who feel safe to walk in their local 85% 87% 4_7 ↑ Scottish Borders Household Survey area after dark (2013) (2015)
7 | P a g e 27 35 45 Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal 4_11 No. Race related hate crimes ↑ (2012/13) (2014/15) (2015/16) Service 8 16 18 Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal 4_12 No. Sexual orientation related hate crimes ↑ (2012/13) (2014/15) (2015/16) Service 4 5 4 Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal 4_13 No. Disability related hate crimes ↑↓ (2012/13) (2014/15) (2015/16) Service 0 5 7 Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal 4_14 No. Religion related hate crimes ↑ (2012/13) (2014/15) (2015/16) Service 0 0 1 Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal 4_15 No. Trans Gender related hate crimes →↑ (2012/13) (2014/15) (2015/16) Service * Changed wording from % Children in Poverty
To address this Outcome the work of Scottish Borders Council has included the development with Community Planning partners of
Page 204 Page a Scottish Borders Reducing Inequalities Strategy which provides the framework for improving economic and social inclusion in the region. Other areas of progress include the support for the development of Early Years centres in primary schools in disadvantaged areas; the major efforts made with partners to maximise the uptake of welfare benefits; the development of the Scottish Borders Child Minders Scheme; and the establishment of a Family Information web-site.
Key performance examples are: over £8.6 million of benefit gains that have been secured for service users in 2015/16 including £1.7 million secured for people affected by cancer; fewer children in poverty in the Scottish Borders (10.9%) than the national rate of 15.3%
In the Scottish Borders, it is estimated that 22% of households live in fuel poverty and 12% live in extreme fuel poverty, compared with 20% in Scotland living in fuel poverty and 7% living in extreme fuel poverty (Fuel Poverty Activity Annual Update 2013-2014).
The rural nature of the area, the type of housing and the high proportion of elderly households, contributes to higher levels of fuel poverty than the Scottish average.
In relation to tackling fuel poverty the aims of the Council and its partners are to: Improve the understanding of fuel poverty in the Scottish Borders in order that the Council can improve targeting of services. Provide ongoing fuel poverty advice and information to households in all tenures. Increase energy and fuel efficiency of housing in all tenures. Reduce the number of low income households living in fuel poverty.
To meet these aims the Council has a Home Energy Advice Service which has been operational since January 2005. This provides energy advice to households through telephone enquiries, home visits and presentations. The Council and its partners have also been heavily involved in supporting the delivery of the Scottish Borders Energy Efficiency Schemes which between 2011 and 2015 have resulted in 8,422 installed measures across 5,842 households according to a report on the Schemes by Changeworks in 2015. Page 205 Page Outcome 5: Our citizens have the freedom to make their own choices and are able to lead independent, healthy lives as responsible citizens
Performance Information Performance PI Description 2012/13 2014/15 2015/16 Data Source PI Code Trend % of disabled people satisfied with the local bus 80% 77% Scottish Borders Household 5_1 ↓ service (2013) (2015) Survey % of older (50+) residents who are satisfied with 81% 85% Scottish Borders Household 5_2 ↑ the local bus service (2013) (2015) Survey % of younger (under 50) residents who are 70% 65% Scottish Borders Household 5_3 ↓ satisfied with the local bus service (2013) (2015) Survey % of female residents who are satisfied with the 82% 81% Scottish Borders Household 5_4 ↓ local bus service (2013) (2015) Survey % of male residents who are satisfied with the 81% 81% Scottish Borders Household
Page 206 Page 5_5 → local bus service (2013) (2015) Survey % of Female residents who take part in physical 61% 68% Scottish Borders Household 5_6 ↑ activity 2 to 3 times a week or more often (2013) (2015) Survey % of Male residents who take part in physical 64% 74% Scottish Borders Household 5_7 ↑ activity 2 to 3 times a week or more often (2013) (2015) Survey % of Disabled residents who take part in physical 39% 55% Scottish Borders Household 5_11 ↑ activity 2 to 3 times a week or more often (2013) (2015) Survey % of older (50+) residents who have internet 77% 81% Scottish Borders Household 5_12 ↑ access (2013) (2015) Survey % of younger (under 50) residents who have 95% 98% Scottish Borders Household 5_13 ↑ internet access (2013) (2015) Survey 4.7% 4.4% 4.6% 5_14 % of Adults claiming health related benefit ↓↑ ScotPho Profiles (2010) (2013) (2015) % of adults with learning disabilities living in 42% 40% 38% Scottish Commission for 5_15 ↓ mainstream accommodation (2012) (2014) (2015) Learning Disability 5_16 % of people aged 65+, receiving long-term care, ↓ 32.3% 26.2% 25.3% Local Government who receive an intensive homecare service (10+ Benchmarking Framework hours per week) 9 | P a g e (2012) (2014) (2015) Rates of domestic abuse incidents reported to 818 759 799 Scottish Government publish 5_17 ↓↑ police (per 100,000 population) (2012/13) (2013/14) (2014/15) annual data
To aspire towards this Outcome a range of initiatives have been undertaken by the Council, most prominently the work with NHS Borders to establish the Borders Health and Social Care Partnership and the production of the Scottish Borders Health and Social Care Strategic Plan 2016-17. Other initiatives include: A Community Capacity Building Team has been set up to improve the health and well-being of older people. A project to promote a self-directed support approach for younger people. Engagement with disability groups. Support for young people through Drugs and Alcohol Services to address substance misuse.
Page 207 Page Key performance data includes: as at March 2016, 72% of adults aged over 65 who receive care do so at home (as opposed to in a residential setting); 20.6% of adults are using Self-Directed Support to plan and manage their own care which is higher than the national rate; and survey results from September 2015 show 85% of Social Work service users saying that they feel safe. Outcome 6: The difference in rates of employment between the general population and those from under-represented groups is improved.
Performance Information Performance PI Code PI Description 2012/13 2014/15 2015/16 Data Source Trend % difference pay gap between men and 12.9% 8.0% 22.3% NOMIS / APS 6_1 women who are resident in the Scottish ↓↑ (2013) (2014) (2015) Borders 6_2 % difference pay gap between men and 11.2% 9.1% 9.0% NOMIS / APS ↓ women who work in the Scottish Borders (2013) (2014) (2015) 6_3 Economic activity rate aged 16-64 - EA core or Not available 58.2% 54.4% NOMIS / APS ↓ work-limiting disabled (2014) (2015) Economic activity rate aged 16-64 - not EA Not available 85.9% 85.2% ↓ core or work-limiting disabled (2014) (2015)
Page 208 Page 73.5% 73.7% 73.5% NOMIS / APS 6_4 Employment Rate: Females 16-64 ↑↓ (2013/14) (2014/15) (2015/16) 78.3% 80.2% 80.3% NOMIS / APS 6_5 Employment Rate: Males 16-64 ↑ (2013/14) (2014/15) (2015/16) Employment Rate: 52.1% 63.7% 62.0% 6_6 ↑↓ NOMIS / APS All aged 16-24 (2013) (2014) (2015) Employment Rate: 75.8% 76.8% 76.8% 6_7 ↑→ NOMIS / APS All aged 16-64 (2013/14) (2014/15) (2015/16) Employment Rate: 48.6% 79.1% 64.5% NOMIS / APS ↑↓ 6_7-5 All aged 16-64 Ethnic Minority* (2013/14) (2014/15) (2015/16) Employment Rate: 67.8% 67.8% 71.9% 6_8 →↑ NOMIS/APS All aged 50-64 (2013) (2014) (2015) 6_9 Percentage of JSA (Jobseeker's Allowance) 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% NOMIS / APS → claimants who are from an Ethnic Minority* (2013) (2014) (2015) 8.7% 5.7% 7.0% 6_10 % of people with no qualifications ↓↑ NOMIS / APS (2013) (2014) (2015) * Includes Mixed, Asian, Black, Chinese, Other Ethnic Group and all White except White British. Also excludes Unknown and Prefer Not To Say.
13 | P a g e To make progress on this Outcome Scottish Borders Council has taken forward a number of programmes and projects including the Council’s Employment Support Service; the implementation of the Developing the Young Workforce Initiative which is improving links between schools and businesses; and the development of the Modern Apprenticeship Scheme within the Council which is providing training and vocational opportunities for young people.
Key performance data shows that: the employment rates of both men and women (16-64 years) have increased since 2013/14 but the rate for women is still lower than men (a male employment rate of 80.3% compared to a female employment rate of 73.5% in 2015/16); the employment rate for ethnic minorities has increased from 48.6% in 2013/14 to 64.5% in 2015/16; and the employment rate amongst those who have a work-limiting disability was 54.4% in 2015/16 as against the overall rate of 76.8%. Page 209 Page Outcome 7: The difference in educational attainment between those who are from an equality group and those who are not is improved.
Performance Information PI Code Performance PI Description ^ 2012/13 2014/15 2015/16 Data Source Trend 7_1 % of S5 Pupils Achieving Level 4 for Literacy 88.1% 90.4% 91.5% Source: Insight - SBC People Dept. ↑ and Numeracy - All (2014) (2015) (2016) 7_2 % of S5 Pupils Achieving Level 4 for Literacy 89.8% 89.7% 89.1% Source: Insight - SBC People Dept. ↓ and Numeracy - Males (2014) (2015) (2016) 7_3 % of S5 Pupils Achieving Level 4 for Literacy 86.6% 91.0% 93.5% Source: Insight - SBC People Dept. ↑ and Numeracy - Females (2014) (2015) (2016) 7_4 % of S5 Pupils Achieving Level 4 for Literacy 66.7% 68.9% 74.9% Source: Insight - SBC People Dept. ↑ and Numeracy - ASN (2014) (2015) (2016) 7_5 % of S5 Pupils Achieving Level 5 for Literacy 56.9% 63.0% 69.4% Source: Insight - SBC People Dept.
Page 210 Page ↑ and Numeracy - All (2014) (2015) (2016) % of S5 Pupils Achieving Level 5 for Literacy 7_6 55.4% 61.1% 64.8% Source: Insight - SBC People Dept. and Numeracy - Males ↑ (2014) (2015) (2016) 7_7 % of S5 Pupils Achieving Level 5 for Literacy 58.1% 64.9% 73.2% Source: Insight - SBC People Dept. ↑ and Numeracy - Females (2014) (2015) (2016) 7_8 % of S5 Pupils Achieving Level 5 for Literacy 37.1% 22.2% 31.3% Source: Insight - SBC People Dept. ↓↑ and Numeracy - ASN (2014) (2015) (2016) % of Female School Leavers who go on to a 93.8% 93.6% 96.1% 7_7 ↓↑ Skills Development Scotland positive destination (2012/13) (2013/14) (2014/15) % of Male School Leavers who go on to a 90.5% 94.9% 94.5% 7_8 ↑↓ Skills Development Scotland positive destination (2012/13) (2013/14) (2014/15) ^ Changes in the Indicators from previous reports due to changes at a national level
In terms of general attainment, the Scottish Borders scores above the Scottish average and there has been a positive trend over the last three years for attainment results particularly in achievement levels for 6th year pupils. In terms of positive destinations, there are more young people in the Scottish Borders going on to a positive destination on leaving school compare with the 15 | P a g e average across Scotland and more school leavers remain in a positive destination when followed up at 6 months than the Scottish average.
The attainment levels of our most vulnerable young people are improving with the Scottish Borders moving from the fourth to the second quartile nationally. Improving attainment for all learners and particularly those from targeted areas is a key priority for the Education Service and a significant piece of work will be progressed over the next 3 years through the Closing the Gap programme to ensure all children and young people achieve their potential.
Over the last three years, 50% or more of the adult learners that completed a learning opportunity provided by Scottish Borders Council thought it had achieved increased skills, confidence and health and well-being. Page 211 Page Outcome 8: We have appropriate accommodation which meets the needs of our diverse community.
Performance Information Performance PI Code PI Description 2012/13 2014/15 2015/16 Data Source Trend % of the Households receiving Housing 78% 77.6% 8_1 → N/A Scottish Government / SBC Benefit that are Social Renting (2012) (2016) % of the Households receiving HB that are 22% 22.4% 8_2 → N/A Scottish Government / SBC Private Renting (2012) (2016) 8_3 % of Households experiencing Fuel Poverty ↑↓ 22% 43% 39% Scottish House Condition Survey (2011 – (2009 – 2011) (2012 - 2014) 2013) % of Households experiencing extreme Fuel 8_4 15% 12% 14% Scottish House Condition Survey Poverty ↓↑ Page 212 Page (2011 – (2009 – 2011) (2012 - 2014) 2013) 8_5 ↓ 5% 3% 2% Scottish House Condition Survey % Dwellings where adaptations are required (2011 – by householders (2009 – 2011) (2012 - 2014) 2013) 5% 6% 5% % Dwellings which have aspects that restrict 8_6 ↑↓ (2011 – Scottish House Condition Survey activity of LTI/disabled household member (2009 – 2011) (2012 - 2014) 2013) 8_7 ↑↓ 14% 23% 20% Scottish House Condition Survey % of Households experiencing Fuel Poverty (2011 – who are Families (2009 – 2011) (2012 - 2014) 2013) 8_8 ↓ 62% 60% 52% Scottish House Condition Survey % of Households experiencing Fuel Poverty (2011 – who are Pensioners (2009 – 2011) (2012 - 2014) 2013) Number of Households living in Temporary 89 82 82 8_9 ↓→ Scottish Government Accommodation (March 2013) (March 2015) (March 2016) 495 534 483 8_10 Number of Households Assessed as Homeless ↑↓ Scottish Government (2012/13) (2014/15) (2015/16) To progress this Outcome work undertaken by Scottish Borders Council and its partners has included the embedding of 17 | P a g e equalities in the development of a refreshed Local Housing Strategy; in 2015/16 220 affordable houses were built and 95 households were assisted with disabled adaptation;
We have also established Bridge Homes which is a Limited Liability Partnership wholly owned by the Council to address housing supply issues in the Scottish Borders.
We are assessing the need for extra care housing and developing a delivery framework to assist the housing needs of disabled and older people.
Registered Social Landlords have been successful in securing funding. During 2015/16 the Council used its Second Homes/Council Tax budget to assist the delivery of affordable housing by contributing to developments at Lilliesleaf, Peebles and Hawick. Page 213 Page This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 3
Workforce Data
Table of Contents Page Number
Setting the Scene Legislative Context 2 Operational Context 2 Workforce Data analysed by : 3-11 Gender 4
Page 215 Page Age 6 Ethnic Origin 10 Disability 11 Gender Reassignment 11 Sexual Orientation 11 Religion and/or belief 12 Marital Status 12 Carers 12 Operational aspects: 13—25 Training Courses 13 Grievance 19 Disciplinary 19 Applications for Recruitment 22 Gender Pay Gap/Equal Pay 25
Page | 1 Legislative Context As stated earlier in this mainstreaming report, there are specific duties that Scottish Borders Council is required to comply with. This means that we have a duty to gather and use workforce data across the nine protected characteristics and sub levels as indicated below. We are also required to publish pay gap information and statements on equal pay. This section of the report provides details obtained from our workforce data.
Operational Context The information used within this report with regard to employees of Scottish Borders Council has been taken from the Corporate HR and Payroll System. As employees can hold multiple posts with the Council it has been decided that we use the post that the employee has defined as their main post for the purpose of completing the analysis. This will tend to be the post that they have held for the longest period of time. The Job Groups that have been used within the report are: Teachers (teaching staff, music instructors and psychologists) Chief Officers (the most senior managers) Single Status (all other staff employed by the Council)
Page 216 Page These have been used as they identify the conditions of service that each employee works under. For information we have also included statistics for each of the characteristics we hold at entire workforce level.
The Council has three departments: Chief Executives Place People (including Education)
Since April 2015, the Council’s Adult Home and Residential care services have been provided by Scottish Borders Cares LLP (“SB Cares”). Employees working for the Council in these services as at that date were transferred to SB Cares on the same terms and conditions of employment.
SB Cares is wholly owned by Scottish Borders Council.
These figures accordingly include staff employed by SB Cares, who are recorded as Single Status staff.
Analysis of the nine characteristics and sub levels, listed below, has also been carried out.
Gender Age Ethnic Origin Disability Gender Reassignment Sexual Orientation Religion and/or belief Marital Status Carer Status
Page | 2 Sub-levels of analysis Employment Status Location – Department for all staff (except Teachers) and Catchment Area for Teaching Staff Job Group – based on the terms and conditions of service the employee works under Grade
Throughout this report we have shown the data as a percentage and number of staff for each characteristic where possible. Due to the low level of numbers in the majority of the characteristics, we have only shown the percentage as this may otherwise identify individuals, as the report is further analysed. If there are points to note these have been drawn out and included within the narrative.
The data for 2015 and 2016 has been derived from workforce data from January to December in those years and as outlined in Table 1
Table 1 – Total number of employees
Page 217 Page Teachers Chief Officers Single Status Total
2015 1484 23 4682 6189 2016 1389 26 4245 5660
Single status figures include Modern Apprentices, who are paid the National Minimum Wage appropriate to their age; Business Gateway, who are a small number of employees who transferred to the Council from Scottish Enterprise in 2012.
In 2015 employees transferred to SBCares from Allied Health Care. These carers are now on Single Status Terms and Conditions.
Page | 3 Female 71.20 72.00 3350 3075 (1) Gender Male 28.80 28.00 1355 1196 Totals 100% 100% 4705 4271 There has been a very slight change in the workforce gender balance. The overall Council workforce is predominately female (73%) as displayed Figure 3 – Workforce Gender Balance by Status in figure 1. 2015 2016 Status Female Male Female Male Casual/Relief 76.25% 23.75% 79.71% 20.29% Gender Full Time 45.45% 54.55% 45.75% 54.25% Part time 89.13% 10.87% 89.78% 10.22%
Figure 4 – Workforce Gender Balance by Department 27.00% 2015 2016 Female Department Female Male Female Male Page 218 Page Male Chief Executives 62.91% 37.09% 71.18% 28.82% 73.00% People 85.12% 14.88% 84.48% 15.52% Place 47.72% 52.28% 49.20% 50.80% SBC Cares 90.77% 9.23% 91.00% 9.00%
Figure 5 – Workforce Gender Balance by Job Group Figure 1 – Workforce Gender Balance (all staff) 2015 2016 Staff by % Staff by Number Job Group Female Male Female Male 2015 2016 2015 2016 Chief Officers 60.87% 39.13% 57.69% 42.31% Female 72.64 73.00 4496 4132 Single Status 71.25% 28.75% 72.08% 27.92% Male 27.36 27.00 1693 1528 Totals 100% 100% 6189 5660
Chief Officers and Single Status Figure 2 – Workforce Gender Balance Staff by % Staff by Number 2015 2016 2015 2016
Page | 4 Figure 6 – Workforce Gender Balance by Grade 2015 2016 Figure 8 – Workforce Gender Balance by Catchment Area Grade Female Male Female Male 2015 2016 Allied Health 88.64% 11.36% Catchment Area Female Male Female Male National Minimum Wage 31.71% 31.71% 45.71% 54.29% Berwickshire 75.14% 24.86% 72.78% 27.22% Business Gateway 80.00% 20.00% 75.00% 25.00% Cheviot 77.84 22.16% 76.25% 23.75% Grade 1 81.84% 18.16% 80.71% 19.29% Eildon East 76.86% 23.14% 75.74% 24.26% Grade 2 39.93% 60.07% 39.56% 60.44% Eildon West 80.11% 19.89% 78.80% 21.20% Grade 3 18.80% 81.20% 17.53% 82.47% Teviot & Liddesdale 76.19% 23.81% 76.88% 23.13% Grade 4 86.72% 13.28% 87.50% 12.50% Tweeddale 79.21% 20.79% 78.33% 21.67% Grade 5 77.75% 22.25% 80.11% 19.89% Various 76.12% 23.88% 74.46% 25.54% Grade 6 69.50% 30.50% 69.95% 30.05% Grade 7 70.46% 29.54% 70.03% 29.97% Figure 9 – Workforce Gender Balance by Job Group Grade 8 59.06% 40.94% 65.71% 34.29% 2015 2016
Page 219 Page Grade 9 66.57% 33.43% 66.67% 33.33% Job Group Female Male Female Male Grade 10 52.08% 47.92% 50.60% 49.40% Teachers 77.22% 22.77% 76.10% 23.90% Grade 11 21.62% 78.38% 24.32% 75.68% Grade 12 45.16% 54.84% 48.15% 51.85% Chief Officers 60.87% 39.13% 57.69% 42.31% Figure 10 – Workforce Gender Balance by Grade 2015 2016 Teachers Grade Female Male Female Male Figure 7 – Workforce Gender Balance Chartered Teacher 62.50% 37.50% 63.46% 36.54% Staff by % Staff by Number Common Scale Teacher 80.31% 19.69% 78.89% 21.11% 2015 2016 2015 2016 Depute & Head Teacher 68.00% 32.00% 68.32% 31.68% Female 77.22 76.10 1146 1057 Music Instructor 50.00% 50.00% 52.63% 47.37% Male 22.78 23.90 338 332 Principal Teacher 70.62% 29.38% 71.26% 28.74% Totals 100% 100% 1484 1389 Probationary Teacher 80.65% 19.35% 73.08% 26.92% Psychologist 81.82% 18.18% 75% 25%
Page | 5 Figure 12b Workforce Age Profile (all staff) 2016 Figure 11 Workforce Gender balance by Status 2015 2016 Status Female Male Female Male Age Group Casual/Relief 73.74% 26.26% 70.56% 29.44% Full Time 73.20% 26.80% 71.98% 28.02% Part Time 92.64% 7.36% 94.12% 5.88% 9.42% 13.39%
16 to 29 (ii) Age 26.93% 30 to 44 Figure 12a – Workforce Age Profile (all staff) 2015 45 to 59 60 and above 50.27% Page 220 Page Age Group
9.32% 13.54% Chief Officers and Single Status Staff 16 to 29 Figure 13 –Workforce Age Profile 30 to 44 Staff by % Staff by Number 27.66% 2015 2016 2015 2016 45 to 59 16 to 29 8.82 8.97 415 383 60 and above 49.47% 30 to 44 25.38 24.19 1194 1033 45 - 59 51.98 53.22 2446 2273 60 and above 13.82 1363 650 582 Total 100% 100% 4705 4271
Page | 6 Figure 14 – Workforce Age Profile by Department Department and Age 2015 2016 Single Status Chief Executives 16 to 29 8.86% 9.02% 16 to 29 9.46% 8.68% 30 to 44 25.46% 24.29% 30 to 44 30.78% 29.17% 45 to 59 51.82% 53.00% 45 to 59 45.95% 52.08% 60 and above 13.86% 13.69% 60 and above 13.81% 10.07% People Figure 16a – Workforce Age Profile by Grade 16 to 29 5.92% 5.92% 2015 30 to 44 25.16% 24.47% Grade 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 and 45 to 59 55.65% 56.34% above 60 and above 13.27% 13.26% National Minimum Wage 97.56% 2.44% 0.00% 0.00% Place Allied Health 20.45% 20.45% 43.18% 15.91% 16 to 29 9.74% 9.92% Business Gateway 0.00% 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% Page 221 Page 30 to 44 23.66% 23.54% Grade 1 10.94% 24.29% 47.05% 17.72% 45 to 59 52.15% 52.08% Grade 2 4.85% 19.03% 50.00% 26.12% 60 and above 14.45% 14.46% Grade 3 4.70% 22.22% 53.42% 19.66% SBCares Grade 4 8.87% 23.41% 52.86% 14.85% 16 to 29 12.30% 12.80% Grade 5 11.47% 24.54% 54.36% 9.63% 30 to 44 24.60% 23.18% Grade 6 7.80% 35.78% 47.71% 8.72% 45 to 59 49.32% 50.06% Grade 7 8.40% 24.66% 53.66% 13.28% 60 and above 13.78% 13.96% Grade 8 6.38% 34.23% 51.34% 8.05% Grade 9 4.99% 30.79% 52.20% 12.02% Figure 15 – Workforce Age Profile by Job Group Grade 10 0.00% 19.79% 70.83% 9.38% Job Group and Age 2015 2016 Grade 11 0.00% 24.32% 62.16% 13.51% Chief Officers Grade 12 0.00% 16.13% 80.65% 3.23% 16 to 29 0.00% 0.00% Chief Officers 0.00% 8.70% 86.95% 4.35% 30 to 44 8.70% 7.69% 45 to 59 86.96% 88.46% 60 and above 4.35% 3.85%
Page | 7 Figure 16b – Workforce Age Profile by Grade 60 and above 8.64% 9.19% 2016 Part time Grade 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 and 16 to 29 6.88% 7.20% above 30 to 44 24.99% 23.82% National Minimum Wage 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45 to 59 53.35% 54.38% Business Gateway 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 60 and above 14.77% 14.60% Grade 1 7.87% 23.86% 47.72% 20.56% Grade 2 4.76% 16.85% 52.38% 26.01% Teachers Grade 3 10.31% 18.04% 54.64% 17.01% Figure 18 –Workforce Age Profile Grade 4 9.83% 22.39% 53.81% 13.97% Staff by % Staff by Number Grade 5 10.48% 23.12% 56.99% 9.41% 2015 2016 2015 2016 Grade 6 9.63% 32.34% 50.00% 8.03% 16 to 29 10.92 10.80 162 150 Grade 7 8.31% 25.22% 55.19% 11.28% 30 to 44 34.91 35.35 518 491 Grade 8 5.71% 32.65% 53.06% 8.57%
Page 222 Page 45 to 59 41.51 41.18 616 572 Grade 9 4.49% 33.65% 49.68% 12.18% 60 and above 12.67 12.67 188 176 Grade 10 0.00% 18.07% 65.06% 16.87% Total 100% 100% 1484 1388 Grade 11 0.00% 13.51% 72.97% 13.51% Grade 12 0.00% 7.41% 88.89% 3.70% Figure 19 – Workforce Age Profile by Catchment Area Chief Officers 0.00% 7.69% 88.46% 3.85% Catchment Area and Age 2015 2016 Berwickshire Figure 17 – Workforce Age Profile by Status 16 to 29 11.60% 12.43% Status and Age 2015 2016 30 to 44 31.49% 36.09% Casual/Relief 45 to 59 50.83% 46.15% 16 to 29 13.16% 10.60% 60 and above 6.08% 5.33% 30 to 44 25.61% 26.14% Cheviot 45 to 59 37.77% 40.40% 16 to 29 13.77% 12.50% 60 and above 23.46% 22.85% 30 to 44 37.72% 36.25% Full Time 45 to 59 43.71% 46.25% 16 to 29 9.62% 10.75% 60 and above 4.79% 5.00% 30 to 44 25.80% 24.00% Eildon East 45 to 59 55.94% 56.06% 16 to 29 17.47%% 15.32% 30 to 44 38.86% 41.28%
Page | 8 45 to 59 38.43% 39.57% Figure 21a – Workforce Age Profile by Grade 60 and above 5.24% 3.83% 2015 Eildon West Grade 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 and 16 to 29 6.63% 9.78% above 30 to 44 45.30% 44.57% Chartered Teacher 0.00% 33.93% 60.71% 5.36% 45 to 59 41.44% 38.04% Common Scale Teacher 12.70% 33.49% 38.82% 15.00% 60 and above 6.63% 7.61% Depute & Head Teacher 0.00% 43.00% 49.00% 8.00% Teviot & Liddesdale Music Instructor 4.55% 31.82% 50.00% 13.64% 16 to 29 13.69% 14.38% Principal Teacher 0.00% 42.37% 51.98% 5.65% 30 to 44 44.05% 45.00% Probationary Teacher 74.19% 19.35% 6.45% 0.00% 45 to 59 38.69% 37.50% Psychologist 0.00% 0.00% 36.36% 54.55% 60 and above 3.57% 3.13% Tweeddale Figure 21b – Workforce Age Profile by Grade 16 to 29 10.40% 9.85% 2016 Page 223 Page 30 to 44 39.11% 38.92% Grade 16 to 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 and 45 to 59 48.51% 46.80% 29 above 60 and above 1.98% 4.43% Chartered Teacher 0.00% 26.92% 63.46% 9.62% Various Common Scale Teacher 12.49% 34.89% 37.46% 15.16% 16 to 29 6.18% 4.32% Depute & Head Teacher 0.00% 39.60% 53.47% 6.93% 30 to 44 20.79% 15.11% Music Instructor 0.00% 21.05% 57.89% 21.05% 45 to 59 35.11% 36.69% Principal Teacher 1.72% 42.53% 51.72% 4.02% 60 and above 37.92% 43.88% Probationary Teacher 80.77% 11.54% 7.69% 0.00% Psychologist 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% Figure 20 – Workforce Age Profile by Job Group Job Group and Age 2015 2016 Teachers 16 to 29 10.92% 10.80% 30 to 44 34.91% 35.35% 45 to 59 41.51% 41.18% 60 and above 12.67% 12.67%
Page | 9 Figure 22 – Workforce Age Profile by Status Figure 23a – Workforce Ethnic Origin Profile (all staff) 2015 Status and Age 2015 2016 Casual/Relief Ethnic Origin 16 to 29 13.16% 3.74% 0.40% 30 to 44 25.61% 10.28% 45 to 59 37.77% 31.31%
60 and above 23.46% 54.67% 24.12% Black Minority Ethnic Full Time Total 16 to 29 9.62% 14.73% White Total 30 to 44 25.80% 38.43% Not Disclosed Total 45 to 59 55.94% 43.74% 75.47% 60 and above 8.64% 3.10% Part Time 16 to 29 6.88% 3.31% Page 224 Page 30 to 44 24.99% 44.85% 45 to 59 53.35% 40.44% Figure 23b – Workforce Ethnic Origin Profile (all staff) 2016 60 and above 14.77% 11.40% Ethnic Origin (iii) Ethnic Origin 0.39% The proportion of Black and Minority Ethnic employees has fallen
slightly over the two years from 0.40% to 0.37%. The proportion of 22.40% Black Minority Ethnic employees identifying themselves as white has increased slightly Total over the two years. White Total
Not Disclosed Total Due to the low level of Black Minority Ethnic employees that are 77.21% employed by the Council no further breakdowns have been included as this may lead to the identification of individuals.
Page | 10 (iv) Disability When comparing the two years, the level of employees indicating (v) Gender Reassignment that they have a disability has dropped to 2.37% of the workforce. The level of employees indicating that they are currently However, it has to be considered that this figure may be low as there undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment over the are in excess of 42% of employees who have not provided a response past two years has remained static. Due to the extremely low to this question, as illustrated in the chart below as “not stated” and level of employees who have indicated this no further analysis is “no response. included as this may lead to the identification of individuals.
Figure 24a – Workforce Disability Profile (all staff) 2015 Figure 25 – Workforce Gender Reassignment (all staff) Gender Reassignment 2015 2016 Disability No 67.56% 65.67% 2.52% No Response 22.73% 25.71% Not Stated 9.58% 8.48% No Yes 0.13% 0.14%
Page 225 Page 38.57% No Response 52.48% Not Stated Yes (vi) Sexual Orientation The level of employees who have indicated that their sexual 6.43% orientation is Bisexual, Gay or Lesbian has increased over the past two years. However, due to the low number of employees who have Figure 24a – Workforce Disability Profile (all staff) 2016 indicated this no further analysis is included as this may lead to the identification of individuals. Disability Figure 26 – Workforce Sexual Orientation for all staff 2.37% Sexual Orientation 2015 2016 Bisexual 0.37% 0.46% No Gay 0.16% 0.25% 36.77% No Response Heterosexual 66.17% 68.25% 55.14% Not Stated Lesbian 0.13% 0.18% Yes No Response 21.72% 20.04% Not Stated 11.46% 10.83% 5.72%
Page | 11 (vii) Religion and/or Belief Partnered 10.03% 10.51% Whilst there are some small variations between the two years the Single 12.46% 13.62% two highest categories remain No Religious Group and Protestant. Widowed 0.81% 0.71%
Figure 27 – Workforce Religion or Belief all staff Religion or Belief 2015 2016 (ix) Carers Agnostic 1.36% 1.22% The number of employees who have indicated that they have caring Atheist 2.67% 2.74% responsibilities has slightly increased over the past two years, with the Buddhist 0.19% 0.18% majority indicating that they have no caring responsibilities. Catholic 4.56% 4.70% Hindu 0.02% 0.02% Figure 29 – Workforce Carer – all staff Jewish 0.11% 0.11% Carer 2015 2016 Muslim 0.06% 0.07% No 47.55% 48.00% No Religious Group 28.62% 29.77% Page 226 Page No Response 24.54% 22.92% No Response 20.78% 19.13% Not Stated 9.92% 9.05% Not Stated 9.60% 9.56% Yes 17.98% 20.04% Other 1.53% 1.55% Other Christian 5.98% 6.31% Protestant 24.53% 24.65%
(viii) Marital Status Whilst there are some variations between to the two years, the highest category remains ”married”.
Figure 28 – Workforce Marital Status all staff Marital Status 2015 2016 Civil Partnership 0.61% 0.62% Divorced 6.43% 6.50% Married 44.29% 44.42% No Response 20.20% 18.66% Not Stated 5.17% 4.96%
Page | 12 Training Courses The following tables display the completions rates of Council employees of five Mandatory training courses in the periods January – December 2015 and 2016 respectively. The data has been analysed by location and the protected characteristics of age and gender. As in other examples no significant data can be derived from the other protected characteristics and sub categories as this may identify individuals. The data shows only completions of Mandatory training.
PREVENT training and the Information Management Course were both launched in 2016. The Information Management Course replaced the Guide to Data Protection Course.
Figure 30a - Training Chief Executives and Single Status
Information A Guide to Data Equality & Child Protection Information Management PREVENT online Protection Act 1998 Diversity Online module Security Awareness Page 227 Page
Chief 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Executives
Female 60% 47% N/A 71% N/A 68% 62% 51% 68% 51% 67% 52% Gender Male 40% 53% N/A 29% N/A 32% 38% 49% 32% 49% 33% 48% 16 to 29 5% 7% N/A 8% N/A 8% 6% 17% 6% 14% 7% 15% 30 to 44 28% 29% N/A 27% N/A 28% 28% 20% 29% 27% 26% 22% Age 45 to 59 52% 38% N/A 53% N/A 53% 54% 48% 53% 47% 52% 51% 60 and 14% 25% N/A 11% N/A 11% 12% 15% 12% 13% 15% 13% above People 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Female 84% 88% N/A 89% N/A 88% 84% 85% 83% 86% 86% 85% Gender Male 16% 12% N/A 11% N/A 12% 16% 15% 17% 14% 14% 15% 16 to 29 6% 6% N/A 6% N/A 5% 7% 8% 6% 8% 5% 8% Age 30 to 44 23% 29% N/A 26% N/A 23% 22% 26% 22% 33% 24% 24%
Page | 13 45 to 59 59% 56% N/A 59% N/A 62% 60% 54% 60% 52% 56% 59% 60 and 11% 10% N/A 10% N/A 10% 11% 12% 12% 0.07 15% 9% above Place 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Female 55% 43% N/A 49% N/A 52% 50% 57% 51% 58% 52% 36% Gender Male 45% 57% N/A 51% N/A 48% 50% 43% 49% 42% 48% 64% 16 to 29 10% 9% N/A 11% N/A 12% 11% 9% 10% 10% 12% 13% 30 to 44 25% 24% N/A 23% N/A 26% 23% 22% 25% 23% 27% 25% Age 45 to 59 50% 55% N/A 53% N/A 50% 52% 52% 52% 51% 50% 51% 60 and 14% 13% N/A 13% N/A 12% 14% 17% 13% 17% 11% 11% above SB Cares 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Page 228 Page Female 92% 95% N/A 92% N/A 91% 88% 93% 87% 93% 88% 83% Gender Male 8% 5% N/A 8% N/A 9% 12% 7% 13% 7% 12% 17% 16 to 29 14% 10% N/A 10% N/A 9% 14% 10% 13% 9% 12% 8% 30 to 44 20% 17% N/A 23% N/A 23% 21% 21% 22% 22% 27% 25% Age 45 to 59 51% 57% N/A 52% N/A 51% 54% 55% 54% 53% 50% 55% 60 and 15% 16% N/A 15% N/A 16% 11% 14% 11% 16% 12% 11% above Course completion Totals by staff numbers 1417 490 0 2487 0 2511 1398 1386 1570 1335 1239 591
Page | 14 Figure 30b - Teaching Staff Information A Guide to Data Equality & Diversity Child Protection Information Management PREVENT online Protection Act 1998 Online module Security Awareness
Berwickshire 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
Female 74% 100% N/A 82% N/A 79% 63% 80% 74% 90% 78% 88% Gender Male 26% 0% N/A 18% N/A 21% 38% 20% 26% 10% 22% 13% 16 to 22% 0% N/A 14% N/A 14% 25% 5% 16% 5% 11% 0% 29 30 to 19% 60% N/A 34% N/A 32% 25% 55% 26% 52% 22% 63% 44 Age
Page 229 Page 45 to 48% 40% N/A 48% N/A 48% 42% 35% 48% 38% 61% 38% 59 60 and 11% 0% N/A 4% N/A 6% 8% 5% 10% 5% 6% 0% above Cheviot 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Female 85% 83% N/A 79% N/A 80% 83% 71% 84% 71% 87% 70% Gender Male 15% 17% N/A 21% N/A 20% 17% 29% 16% 29% 13% 30% 16 to 15% 8% N/A 12% N/A 11% 17% 16% 15% 12% 17% 7% 29 30 to 27% 50% N/A 38% N/A 37% 28% 47% 28% 53% 30% 44% 44 Age 45 to 52% 42% N/A 46% N/A 47% 52% 37% 51% 32% 48% 44% 59 60 and 6% 0% N/A 3% N/A 5% 3% 0% 6% 3% 5% 4% above
Page | 15 Eildon East 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
Female 74% 93% N/A 71% N/A 74% 75% 82% 74% 80% 71% 94% Gender Male 26% 7% N/A 29% N/A 26% 25% 18% 26% 20% 29% 6% 16 to 13% 7% N/A 12% N/A 12% 11% 13% 13% 29% 13% 28% 29 30 to 28% 21% N/A 36% N/A 32% 26% 39% 25% 38% 31% 22% 44 Age 45 to 53% 57% N/A 47% N/A 48% 57% 45% 56% 29% 56% 44% 59 60 and 6% 14% N/A 5% N/A 7% 6% 3% 6% 4% 0% 6% above
Page 230 Page Eildon West 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
Female 80% 100% N/A 85% N/A 88% 89% 85% 81% 78% 78% 84% Gender Male 20% 0% N/A 15% N/A 12% 11% 15% 19% 22% 22% 16% 16 to 10% 0% N/A 9% N/A 10% 12% 12% 10% 28% 4% 11% 29 30 to 38% 0% N/A 31% N/A 35% 33% 23% 38% 25% 45% 26% 44 Age 45 to 40% 50% N/A 47% N/A 43% 48% 58% 41% 41% 41% 58% 59 60 and 12% 50% N/A 13% N/A 13% 7% 8% 11% 6% 11% 5% above
Page | 16 Teviot & 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Liddesdale
Female 83% 71% N/A 76% N/A 79% 79% 71% 85% 75% 78% 69% Gender Male 17% 29% N/A 24% N/A 21% 21% 29% 15% 25% 22% 31% 16 to 19% 0% N/A 17% N/A 16% 16% 24% 16% 18% 22% 9% 29 30 to 51% 71% N/A 41% N/A 39% 49% 39% 41% 45% 29% 47% 44 Age 45 to 30% 29% N/A 39% N/A 40% 35% 34% 41% 35% 44% 42% 59 60 and 0% 0% N/A 4% N/A 4% 0% 2% 3% 3% 5% 2%
Page 231 Page above
Tweeddale 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
Female 79% 50% N/A 83% N/A 76% 82% 74% 81% 73% 79% 69% Gender Male 21% 50% N/A 17% N/A 24% 18% 26% 19% 27% 21% 31% 16 to 11% 0% N/A 12% N/A 10% 11% 6% 11% 11% 10% 12% 29 30 to 38% 40% N/A 41% N/A 39% 37% 43% 38% 45% 40% 46% 44 Age 45 to 48% 50% N/A 44% N/A 48% 49% 46% 47% 42% 48% 38% 59 60 and 3% 10% N/A 3% N/A 3% 3% 6% 3% 2% 2% 4% above
Page | 17 Various 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Locations
Female 85% 100% N/A 83% N/A 85% 85% 79% 88% 81% 77% 86% Gender Male 15% 0% N/A 17% N/A 15% 15% 21% 12% 19% 23% 14% 16 to 9% 0% N/A 10% N/A 12% 12% 13% 9% 11% 10% 14% 29 30 to 28% 25% N/A 27% N/A 27% 30% 29% 23% 31% 30% 29% 44 Age 45 to 45% 25% N/A 56% N/A 53% 39% 42% 42% 36% 43% 57% 59 60 and 19% 50% N/A 7% N/A 8% 18% 17% 26% 22% 17% 0% above
Page 232 Page Course completion totals by Teachers 572 55 0 528 0 660 506 229 570 272 389 161
Page | 18 Grievance with by the appropriate manager through support, advice, guidance, Where employees have a concern they would normally raise the counselling and/or training, with an emphasis on improving issue directly with their line manager, or ask their Trade Union standards and learning from mistakes, rather than apportioning representative to make an informal approach on their behalf. blame. Therefore in the majority of cases it will be possible to resolve Despite this, there may be occasions when formal disciplinary action potential grievances informally. is required. The Council therefore has a disciplinary procedure to ensure that all managers adopt a uniform approach to discipline. The If informal resolution is not possible employees can raise a formal procedure provides a framework to ensure that any disciplinary grievance. action is taken in a fair and consistent manner, whilst recognising that each case must be treated on its merits taking account of If the potential grievance is of a particularly sensitive or complex nature, individual circumstances. advice may be sought from HR. It is only in these instances that the actual data is recorded. Therefore the data given below is a record of all Figures 31 and 32 provide the details of formal disciplinary action the grievances that have involved HR. As the numbers of staff involved broken down by gender, ethnic origin, disability and age. Further in grievances are low no further analysis is included. Page 233 Page analysis has not been undertaken for the remaining protected characteristics as this may identify individuals. Grievances with HR’s involvement during 2015 totalled 13 and in 2016 totalled 4. The outcomes of these were either that the grievance was resolved or it is currently ongoing.
Discipline The Council recognises that the effective delivery of services is dependent on acceptable standards of conduct and performance of all employees. The Council acknowledges its responsibilities as an employer to determine appropriate standards of conduct and performance and to make employees aware of these standards. Employees also have a responsibility to familiarise themselves with the rules and procedures relating to their employment and to maintain acceptable standards of conduct and performance.
Clearly there may be occasions when any employee does not meet acceptable standards. Minor and non-recurring issues will be dealt
Page | 19 Figure 31a – Disciplinary action and outcome – Gender, Ethnic origin and Disability
2015 Gender Ethnic Origin Disability Outcome Female Male White-Other British White-Scottish Unknown No Yes Dismissal 50% 38% 75% 43% 44% 100% Final Written Warning 6% 5% 4% No Further Action 25% 10% 8% Resigned 13% 5% 4% Verbal Warning 22% 14% 100% 16% Written Warning 22% 25% 25% 24% 24% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Page 234 Page Figure 31b –Disciplinary action and outcome – Gender, Ethnic origin and Disability 2016 Gender Ethnic Origin Disability Outcome Female Male White-Other White-Scottish No Unknown Yes Dismissal 38% 22% 31% 25% 25% 100% Final Written Warning 13% 11% 100% 6% 17% Misc 25% 13% 50% No Further Action 22% 13% 17% Redeployed 11% 6% 8% Resigned 13% 6% 8% Verbal Warning 11% 6% 8% Written Warning 13% 22% 19% 17% 25% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Page | 20 Figure 32a –Disciplinary action and outcome – Age 2015 Age Group Outcome 16 to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 and above Dismissal 43% 60% Final Written Warning 7% No Further Action 13% Resigned 14% Verbal Warning 14% 7% 67% Written Warning 100% 29% 13% 33% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Page 235 Page Figure 32b –Disciplinary action and outcome – Age 2016 Age Group
Outcome 16-to 29 30 to 44 45 to 59 60 and above Number Dismissal 33% 33% 33% Final Written Warning 17% Misc 17% No Further Action 33% 50% 33% Redeployed 8% Resigned 8% Verbal Warning 8% Written Warning 33% 8% 50% 33% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Page | 21 Applications for Recruitment The information used within this section of the report is taken from the ‘My Job Scotland’ National Recruitment Portal for the posts advertised by Scottish Borders Council.
For the purpose of completing the analysis, Scottish Borders Council has used the published end date to determine which year the applicant should be considered within. Due to an upgrade in the National Recruitment Portal applications made and completed on the previous version of the system in early 2015 are not included within the figures.
Analysis based on the applicant’s progress through the recruitment process has been included for Gender, Age, Ethnic Origin and Disability as illustrated in the figures below.
Figure 33 Gender Page 236 Page 2015 2016 Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Applications Applications Selected Applications Applications Applications Selected Applications Gender received for Interview Appointed Gender received for Interview Appointed Female 62.37% 62.34% 65.23% Female 61.91% 64.64% 64.69% Male 33.10% 32.98% 28.32% Male 34.64% 29.14% 24.00% Prefer not to Prefer not to answer 0.40% 0.59% 0.00% answer 0.33% 0.22% 0.69% Not Not disclosed 4.13% 4.08% 6.45% disclosed 3.11% 6.00% 10.62%
Page | 22 Figure 34 Age 2015 2016 Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Applications Applications Selected Applications Applications Applications selected Applications Age Group received for Interview Appointed Age Group received for Interview Appointed 16 to 29 34.43% 27.45% 22.76% 16 to 29 34.20% 26.75% 25.93% 30 to 44 31.99% 35.62% 38.35% 30 to 44 30.06% 32.10% 33.66% 45 to 59 25.82% 30.35% 28.32% 45 to 59 27.45% 32.23% 28.00% 60 and above 2.41% 1.18% 2.69% 60 and above 4.10% 2.44% 1.79% Not Not disclosed 5.35% 5.40% 7.89% disclosed 4.20% 6.48% 10.62%
Page 237 Page Figure 35 Ethnic Origin Number of Applications Received Number of Applications Number of Applications Appointed Selected for Interview Minority Minority Minority Black Black Black White White White Disclosed Disclosed Not Not Disclosed Not
2015 2.52% 91.39% 6.09% 2.83% 91.11% 6.06% 0.36% 91.58% 8.07%
2016 3.25% 91.91% 4.84% 1.70% 90.82% 7.48% 0.55% 88.00% 11.45%
Page | 23 Figure 36 Disability Number of Applications Received Number of Applications Number of Applications Appointed Selected for Interview No No No Yes Yes Yes Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not
2015 92.85% 1.96% 5.19% 88.68% 6.32% 5.00% 90.86% 2.33% 6.81%
2016 92.46% 3.58% 3.97% 87.73% 5.22% 7.04% 85.79% 2.76% 11.45% Page 238 Page The Council has signed up to the “Disability Confident Level 2” accreditation. This new scheme builds on the Disability Symbol “two ticks” best practices; providing an improved three level Disability Confident journey, helping employers, to recruit and retain disabled people, whilst demonstrating commitment to action and leadership.
As a Disability Confident – Employer we are committed to achieving the scheme’s two themes:
Getting the right people for our business Keeping and developing our people
Both of these themes are supported by core actions and activities that once implemented will help us successfully achieve these themes.
Analysis over the two years indicates that there has been an increase in the percentage of applicants who have indicated that they have a disability, analysis also indicates that there is an increase in the percentage of employees with a disability who have been appointed.
The analysis of the other characteristics (sexual orientation, gender reassignment, religion and/or belief, marital status and carer status) has been carried out. However the data is not included due to the low level of individuals who have indicated that they fall into the protected characteristics. The information that has been made available from National Recruitment Portal means, it is not possible to carry out sub analysis on the following: -
Page | 24 Education (Teachers) This means that on average women earn 11.90% (c) less than Temporary and Permanent positions men Applications for Promotion Teaching Staff The average hourly rate for females is £22.6202 (a) Gender Pay Gap The average hourly rate for males is £ 23.9428 (b) The gender pay gap is the difference between men and women’s hourly The difference in hourly pay is £1.3226 earnings. This means that on average women in Education earn 5.52% (c) less than men. Using guidance and the standard calculation that is set out by the Equality To support our approach to Equal Pay we have formulated an Equal Pay and Human Rights Commission, the Council’s equal pay gap was policy. The policy sets out our aims to state and publicise the Council’s calculated using data as at 26th February 2017. commitment to the principles of equal pay for work of equal value and to enable the achievement of equal pay at a corporate and service level. The Standard Calculation is: Specifically this includes:
Page 239 Page To commit to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value (a)/(b) x 100 = Total for all employees 100 – Total = (c) To eliminate any unfair discrimination, unjust or unlawful (a)/(b) = (c) practices that impact on pay equality To reward fairly the skills and experience of all employees Where; To work in partnership with the recognised Trade Unions to (a) Average Hourly Rate for Women ensure employees have confidence in the process of (b) Average Hourly Rate Men eliminating any bias identified, advance equality of (c) Pay Gap opportunity and foster good relations To operate pay and reward systems which are transparent, The average basic hourly pay (excluding overtime) between male and based on objective criteria and free from bias female employees has been calculated and further details have been To secure the future together with our employees by outlined below: attracting and retaining employees who are committed to delivering excellent public services and making us a dynamic Chief Officers and Single Status Staff and innovative Council by supporting equality of opportunity The average hourly rate for women is £ 11.3009 (a) and valuing diversity within our workforce. The average hourly rate for men is £ 12.8281 (b) The difference in hourly pay is £ 1.5272
Page | 25 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12
CHARITY REORGANISATION UPDATE
Report by the Chief Financial Officer
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
30 March 2017
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides an update on the progress of the ongoing reorganisation of the Council’s registered and unregistered Trust Funds and Charities. The report proposes a timetable and approach for the next phase. 1.2 Scottish Borders Council currently administers a number Charities, Trust Funds and Bequests for a range of purposes. Through the passage of time the out dated purpose or low value of the funds have resulted in many no longer being able to be disbursed. 1.3 In March 2014 3 new OSCR (Office of the Scottish Charities Regulator) registered Charitable Trusts covering Community Enhancement, Education and Welfare were established. Where appropriate a number of the existing trust funds were transferred into these Charities. The purpose and governance of these Trusts were approved by Council on 21 May 2015. 1.4 This left a further group of 76 Trusts registered within a separate SBC Charitable Trust, 177 unregistered Trusts, and two individual registered Trusts, namely the Thomas Howden Wildlife Trust and the Ormiston Institute. The next phase of the Charitable reorganisation now looks to amalgamate, where possible, the remaining Trusts into the3 established charitable trusts. The ethos and any geographical restrictions of the Trusts to be amalgamated will, as with previous phases of the reorganisation, be preserved under the new arrangements. 1.5 Within the 177 unregistered Trusts there are currently ten Trusts (listed in Appendix 3) which another external organisation currently directly operate. It is proposed that the balance of the funds held by these ten trusts are now fully disbursed to these organisations. 1.6 As noted above the Thomas Howden wildlife trust is currently accounted for as a separate registered charity. The value of the Trust is however low at £4,221 and its value does not justify the costs required to comply with full OSCR registration, including the annual production of audited accounts.
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 241 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Scottish Borders Council:-
(a) Agrees an application is submitted to OSCR to amalgamate the Thomas Howden Wildlife Trust into a restricted fund applicable to Peebles within the SBC Educational Trust. (b) Agrees to disburse the funds held for the ten Trusts detailed in Appendix 3 to the organisations noted. (c) Notes the next steps and timetable for the amalgamation of the remaining 167 Trusts, where possible, into the existing Welfare, Educational and Community Enhancement trusts.
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 242 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 In March 2014 OSCR approved the establishment of: SBC Community Enhancement Trust -SCO44764 SBC Welfare Trust – SCO44765, and SBC Educational Trust – SCO44762 Following the establishment of these Trusts OSCR confirmed the de- registration of 34 individual charities following their transfer to the new trusts. 3.2 The new Trusts have restricted funds within them covering specific geographical areas and charitable purposes, which reflect the ethos of the original Trust. Appendix 1 details the purpose of the 3 Trusts and the restricted funds within each as at 31/3/2016. 3.3 Three remaining OSCR registered trusts remain out with these new Charites. These are Ormiston Institute, Thomas Howden Wildlife Award and SBC Charitable Trust. Each of these individual trusts is required to provide fully audited accounts. 3.4 There are also currently 177 charitable trusts/bequests managed by the Council which are not registered with OSCR. These cover a range of geographical areas and purposes. The total value of funds held as the 31 March 2016 was £2.952m with an annual income of £0.507m for 2015/16. 4 NEXT STEPS 4.1 Thomas Howden Wildlife Trust – The trust was established to provide a prize to pupils at Peebles High School with an interest in wildlife. The trust earned £580 during 2015/16 but has not disbursed any prize money since 1996. This has resulted in reserves of £4,221 now being held. It is proposed an application is made to OSCR for the amalgamation of this trust into the SBC Educational Trust with a restricted area of Peebles. 4.2 SBC Charitable Trust – There are currently 76 various funds held within this trust. They vary in purpose, location and size from £1 to £8,961 income in 2015/16. Appendix 2 details the trusts and their balances as at 31 March 2016. It is proposed that work is now undertaken to amalgamate where possible the individual funds into the 3 new trusts. The ethos and locality of the funds will indicate which trust they will amalgamate into, any restrictions regarding geographic locality and purpose to be applied. 4.3 177 Unregistered Trusts - The unregistered trusts managed by the Council cover a wide variety of purpose, location and size. The income for 2015/16 range from £0.23 to £54,325 and many have not disbursed for a number of years. It is proposed work is undertaken to amalgamate where possible the individual funds into the 3 new Trust. The ethos and locality of the funds will indicate which trust they will amalgamate into and any restrictions about locality and purpose which should be applied. 4.4 There are 10 trusts currently within the 177 unregistered Trusts where there are existing larger organisations currently providing for the purpose of the Trust including some where the annual income is currently automatically disbursed to the other organisation. It is proposed that the balances held for these trusts are disbursed to the organisations fulfilling the purposes of the Trust or receiving the annual income. Appendix 3 details these Trusts and the proposed organisations.
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 243 4.5 Consultation - To ensure Members and relevant parties are fully involved in the consultation of the proposed changes all proposals will be presented to opening meetings during June, tying in with Area Forum dates. This will allow full discussion of the proposals before the final recommendations are taken back to Council. Any changes to those trusts registered with OSCR will require full consultation with OSCR on the recommendations. 4.6 The timetable and process proposed for the work for the 177 unregistered trusts and the SBC Charitable trust reorganisation is detailed below.
Steps Time Period Open meetings to discuss initial suggested June – July 2017 amalgamations Consultation with OSCR and Communities Aug – Sept 2017 Meetings to agree final recommended Oct – Nov 2017 amalgamations Report to Council to approve amalgamations December 2017 Submissions to OSCR for amalgamations Jan – Feb 2018 Amalgamations completed March 2018
4.7 The criteria for dispersals from the 3 new trusts will also be considered in tandem with the current internal Grant & Funding Review, to ensure that appropriate and relevant criteria is in place if and where required. The criteria will form part of the proposals being consulted on during June, to allow full discussion to take place before final recommendations are taken back to Council. 4.8 As part of the amalgamation of these Trusts, it is proposed to communicate with the communities of the Scottish Borders (where appropriate), to publicise, raise awareness and to maximise the opportunities that these Trusts can give to Border residents. There may also be areas where match funding can be explored or further funding leverage can be gained.
5 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial
There are no financial implications resulting from this report. 5.2 Risk and Mitigations
No significant risk to the financial position of the charity funds is identified; in fact these proposals enable the funds to be used for appropriate purposes to support the community. 5.3 Equalities
The reorganisation of the trusts will allow the accessing of funds for have been prohibited due to the historic restrictions of the purpose. This will improve the equality implications.
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 244 5.4 Acting Sustainably
Whilst there are no economic, social or environmental effects arising from the proposals contained in this report, there should be easier access to funds by beneficiaries, which will impact upon the economic, social and environment of the Borders. The fund amalgamations should produce more sustainable funds. 5.5 Carbon Management
There are no significant effects on carbon emissions arising from the proposals contained in this report. 5.6 Rural Proofing
There are no significant effects on carbon emissions arising from the proposals contained in this report. 5.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation
There are no changes to the Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation resulting from this report. 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 The Monitoring Officer, the Chief Legal Officer, the Chief Officer Audit and Risk, the Chief Officer HR and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and any comments received have been incorporated into the final report.
Approved by
David Robertson Chief Financial Officer Signature …………………………………..
Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Kirsty Robb Capital and Investment Manager, 01835 825249
Background Papers: Previous Minute Reference: Scottish Borders Council, 21 May 2015
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Capital and Investment Team also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at: Capital and Investment Team, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 OSA Tel: 01835 825016 Fax 01835 825166. email: [email protected]
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 245 This page is intentionally left blank APPENDIX 1 SBC Welfare Trust - Charity Number: SC044765 Charitable Purposes of the Trust: a Prevention or relief of poverty b Relief of those in need by reason of age, ill-health, Disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage c Advancement of Health, including the advancement of education in health
Area Restriction Charitable Trust Total Reserves 31/03/16 purpose Restriction £ Mid & East Berwickshire a & b 59,449.00 Galashiels & District a & b 4,154.00 Leaderdale & Melrose a & b 8,555.00 Jedburgh & District a & b 19,740.00 Hawick & Denholm/ Hawick & Hermitage a & b 8,066.00 Tweeddale East & West None 712.00 Tweeddale East & West a & b 7,273.00
107,949.00
SBC Community Enhancement Trust - Charity Number: SC044764
Charitable Purposes of the Trust: a Advancement of community development b Advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science, including the upkeep of heritage assets. Advancement of recreational facilities, or the organisation of recreational activities, with the object of c improving condition of life for the persons for whom the facilities or activities are primarily intended d Advancement of environmental protection or improvement.
Area Restriction Charitable Trust Total Reserves 31/03/16 purpose Restriction £ Borders Wide a 1,470.00 Berwickshire None 12,870.00 Berwickshire b 27,586.00 Berwickshire - Henderson Park and War Memorial, Gordon Specific to location 513.00 Cheviot -Allerley Well Park, Jedburgh Specific to location 1,589.00 Selkirkshire None 1,088.00 Hawick & Denholm/ Hawick & Hermitage b 18,766.00 Hawick & Denholm/ Hawick & Hermitage a&b 6,787.00
70,669.00
SBC Education Trust - Charity Number: SC044762
Charitable Purposes of the Trust: To advance and/or promote cultural exchange by, among other things, the payment of grants and/or loans, the award of bursaries, the award of prizes, payment towards cultural exchanges that further an educational purpose both within Scottish Borders area and further afield (including abroad), to such educational institution, charities or other organisation or to such individuals deserving of benefit as the Trustees shall, in their sole and unfettered discretion, select as suitable recipients of such benefit, to be applied by such recipients for the charitable purpose of the advancement of education and/or promotion of cultural exchange
Area Restriction Total Reserves 31/03/16
£ Borders Wide 1737
Total SBC Education Trust 1737 Page 247 SBC Charitable Trust APPENDIX 2 Balances as at 31/3/2016 Trust/bequest General Purpose Capital Reserve Revenue Reserve Total £ £ £ Ayton War Memorial Fund Upkeep of war memorial (1,239.65) 5,111.81 3,872.16 Majoriebanks Bequest 1,183.25 2,717.11 3,900.36 I Wallace Bequest Burial ground - Earlston 66.03 558.26 624.29 Alex Grieves bequest (1) Seats-Hawick/2mile radius 425.95 0.00 425.95 WM Browns Bequest (1) Lighting Fountains and clocks Hawick 301.76 0.00 301.76 Alex Grieves bequest (2) Wilton Pk.Musm.showcases 291.35 0.00 291.35 Longformacus Public Park Upkeep of Public Park 210.26 52.71 262.97 Coldstream War Memorial Fund Upkeep of war memorial 34.55 27.76 62.31 Roxburghshire Educational Fund 68,717.52 28,710.79 97,428.31 JAS Henderson Memoral Outward bound advent, gen chart& attainment 547.96 19,867.57 20,415.53 Sir Walter Leith Scholarship 550.31 18,720.98 19,271.29 Peebles Educational Trust 15,740.16 5,934.51 21,674.67 Geoffrey Simpson Bequest Peebles High School prize Head Boy & Girl 11,178.00 4,431.22 15,609.22 Col Jem Richard Prize Fund Peebles High Sch Prizes 998.18 1,902.07 2,900.25 Walter Geddes Prize Fund Peebles High School prize - Latin 366.66 862.46 1,229.12 John Jamieson Prize Fund Peebles High Sch prize - biology 197.47 434.14 631.61 Selkirkshire Educational Trust 8,726.39 2,673.18 11,399.57 Berwickshire Educational Trust 4,190.83 2,327.08 6,517.91 L/C F W Dobson Coldstream Prim Sch Prizes 2,199.98 2,349.97 4,549.95 Special Air Service Reg Fund Coldstream Prim Sch Prizes 543.20 635.48 1,178.68 Hand D Langmack Prize Fund Coldstream Prim Sch Prizes 249.62 291.61 541.23 Coldstream Guards Prize Coldstream Prim Sch Prizes 511.77 359.56 871.33 Murray Medal Fund Galashiels Academy Prize to Dux 1,232.63 1,543.45 2,776.08 Kenneth Cochrane Library Fund Geographic Jnls.Gala. Libry. 616.33 1,030.71 1,647.04 J Purves Bequest Eyemouth Maths Prize 1,102.35 1,650.68 2,753.03 C W Dunnet Eyemouth High School 159.66 136.36 296.02 Jean Kincaird Grieve Endowment Whitsome Sch Prizes/Bks/Eqt 569.52 1,149.43 1,718.95 Jane Grieves Endowment Chirnshide Sch Prizes/BKs/Eqt 470.82 836.82 1,307.64 Dr Milne Memorial Fund 2/3 Newlands, 1/3 West Linton Prim Prizes 442.75 915.26 1,358.01 Andrew, Agnes John Kyle Bequest Student in furtherance of Arts 499.49 330.17 829.66 James Roberston Trust Eddleston School 384.39 608.03 992.42 Mary Dickson Prize Fund Glenndinning Prim Sch Prizes 373.88 410.27 784.15 Mrs Cleland Memorial Prizes Heiton PS Prizes 292.67 636.44 929.11 Campbell Calderhead Prize Caddonfoot Prim Sch Prizes 289.76 477.93 767.69 Mr & Mrs W F Johnstone Fund St Ronans Secondary Prize 219.10 582.16 801.26 Kennedy Medal Fund Selkirk High School prize to Dux 225.52 365.61 591.13 Selkirk Library Fund 572.74 2,955.85 3,528.59 Jedburgh Public Library Fund 445.67 1,059.37 1,505.04 Kelso Library Book Fund 122.46 490.06 612.52 Peebles Public Library For upkeep of Library 197.25 64.92 262.17 Dunlop Bequest Widows & Spinsters of Duns 16,289.43 86,980.41 103,269.84 Lands at Calfward Poor in the parish of Fogo 0.93 24.81 25.74 Miss A T Waldie Trust (Trainee Nurses) Trainee Nurses 2,621.46 17,039.47 19,660.93 Willaim Forresters bequest Poor & Distressed-Galashiels 23,542.94 902.01 24,444.95 Robert Watson Fund Poor of Galashiels 52,253.37 1,002.24 53,255.61 G D Gibson's Bequest Poor of Gala.(not on Public assistance) 1,595.03 844.17 2,439.20 Ex Provost Mercers Bequest 1 Poor of Galashiels 1,042.85 56.75 1,099.60 R B Formans bequest Nurses-Roberton/Teviothead 1,736.90 23,409.84 25,146.74 Mrs Hobkirks Fund Poor Women of Hawick 701.88 2,075.12 2,777.00 Joshua Goodfellows Bequest Poor of Hawick 57.61 286.67 344.28 William Laidlaw Memorial Fund Residents of Hobkirk 441.45 21.45 462.90 Clive Graig-Brown Bequest Distressed-Selkirk 8,885.51 7,399.83 16,285.34 T J S Roberts Trust Poor of Selkirk 7,488.88 4,585.08 12,073.96 George D Gibson Bequest Poor of Selkirk 5,671.44 4,461.54 10,132.98 Thomas B Williamson Bequest Poor of Selkirk 985.38 1,343.34 2,328.72 Sir John Roberts Bequest Poor of Selkirk 2,933.48 3,434.36 6,367.84 Jedburgh Coal Fund Poor of Jedburgh 784.05 10,165.23 10,949.28 Miss A T Waldie Trust (Poor) Poor of Jedburgh 2,133.01 0.00 2,133.01 Henry Laidlaw Trust Poor of Jedburgh 1,885.23 0.00 1,885.23 John Hunters Bequest Poor of Jedburgh 240.12 0.00 240.12 Ex Provost Laidlaws Benefaction Poor of Jedburgh 208.90 0.00 208.90 Mrs M Cheetham Beqeust Poor of Jedburgh 174.16 0.00 174.16 John Murrays Bequest Poor of Jedburgh 95.51 0.00 95.51 James West Brown Bequest Poor of Jedburgh 83.54 0.00 83.54 Robert Meggits Bequest Poor of Jedburgh 1,253.35 0.00 1,253.35 John Herbetson Bequest Poor of Jedburgh 1,537.89 0.00 1,537.89 Ewan Trust Sick/Poor Hobkirk 535.82 2,625.30 3,161.12 Elliot Mortification Poor- Parish of Minto 186.28 2,923.80 3,110.08 Page 248 Balances as at 31/3/2016 Trust/bequest General Purpose Capital Reserve Revenue Reserve Total £ £ £ Edgar Bequest Poor- Parish of Maxton 178.99 1,612.19 1,791.18 Mrs Adams Bequest Poor of Hawick 74.11 340.83 414.94 Dalrymples Mortification Indegent burgesses of Lauder, their widows & orphans 697.81 861.23 1,559.04 Raiths Mortification Indegent burgesses of Lauder, 1,144.45 3,539.60 4,684.05 Waugh Bequest Poor of Melrose 533.89 334.72 868.61 McKinlay Trust Castleton Poor 85.27 460.85 546.12 Brown Bequest For the poor of Drumelzier Parish 15.24 399.91 415.15 Dunwhinny - Simpson 8,065.48 16,396.92 24,462.40 Dunwhinny - Ferguson 9,947.94 6,883.90 16,831.84 280,318.12 313,623.36 593,941.48
Page 249 Total Trust Name Purpose Reserves as £ James Elliots Bequest Hawick Common Riding 501.62 Hawick Common Riding Committee John Pollock Bequest Selkirk Std.Bearer's Medal 422.11 Selkirk Common Riding Committee Marie Curie Mem. Fund To assist Marie Curie Fund 439.47 Marie Curie Marie Curie Memorial Foundation Welfare Fund 206.22 Marie Curie Miss N.M.Taket's Braw Lads Gathering Fund For Braw Lads' Gathering or other festival 112.34 The Braw Lad's Executive Robert Millar Mortification Fund For West Linton Golf Club 265.67 West Linton Golf Club Longformacus Village Hall For Upkeep of Hall 1677 Longformacus Hall Committee Langton Parish Acc Upkeep of village hall 629.94 Langton Hall Committee Yarrow Public Hall Trust Upkeep of Yarrow Hall 1371.13 Yarrow Hall Committee Wm Browns Bequest(2) Hawick Common Riding- Horse Race Flex Stakes 208.11 Hawick Common Riding Committee Page 250 Page 5833.61
APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX Agenda Item 13
HAWICK ACTION PLAN – UPDATE
Report by Corporate Transformation & Services Director
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
30 MARCH 2017
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides a progress report on key activities within the Hawick Action Plan following previous updates in November 2016 and an update in a private report in March 2017. The report also highlights the opportunity to present some of these potential project opportunities as economic development priorities for the proposed South of Scotland Enterprise and Skills Vehicle. 1.2 The Hawick Action Plan is structured around three key themes which were identified and agreed by the key stakeholders for the town. The themes are making Hawick a ‘Great Place for Working and Investing’; a ‘Great Place for Living and Learning’; and a ‘Great Destination to Visit’. 1.3 Since November 2016 there has been significant progress within some of the themes, in particular ‘Creating an Environment to Encourage Economic Growth’. The priority actions identified and areas of progress are set out in Appendix 1. A number of key areas of progress are highlighted within this report. 1.4 Two major projects to note include the Business Growth / Property Development proposal with an application for Scottish Government funding; and the Hawick Flood Protection Scheme. The Business Growth / Property Development Proposal is aimed at helping to deliver a variety of business infrastructure projects to help drive the local economy and to encourage business growth and new investment in the town. The proposal also includes a second phase, which will commission and deliver feasibility studies on individual sites. It is proposed that these sites are presented as priorities for the new South of Scotland Enterprise and Skills Vehicle. 1.5 The Hawick Flood Protection Scheme will now progress to a formal consultation period for the outline design. The project is currently scheduled to have final approval of the design in September 2017 with potential site completion in March 2022. The Flood Protection Scheme will enable further regeneration and development opportunities for the town by safeguarding areas of land currently deemed at risk to flooding.
Page 251 Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 I recommend that Scottish Borders Council: (a) Notes the progress taking forward key actions within the Hawick Action Plan since November 2016, as set out in Appendix 1; (b) Agrees that the Council should support further work with businesses and stakeholders in Hawick in 2017/18 as outlined in Appendix 1; (c) Asks the Corporate Transformation and Services Director to present a further progress report on the Action Plan to the Council before the end of 2017.
Page 252 Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 3 HAWICK ACTION PLAN
3.1 The Hawick Action Plan is structured around three key themes which were identified and agreed by key stakeholders. The themes are: Theme 1: ‘Great Place for Working and Investing’ 1.1 Make Hawick a 'Connected Place' ready to do business in the modern economy. 1.2 Create an Environment to Encourage Economic Growth 1.3 Create an Innovative Flood Protection Scheme Theme 2: ‘Great Place for Living & Learning’ 2.1 Provide a suitable environment to retain school leavers and to attract new workers into the area. Theme 3: ‘Great Destination to Visit’ 3.1 Make Hawick a great place to visit and stay 3.2 The Initial Hawick Action Plan was approved by Council in June 2016. Since then Council officers have been working to take forward the actions in the Plan in conjunction with other key stakeholders, local businesses and other local organisations in Hawick. 4 PROGRESSING THE ACTION PLAN
4.1 An update of the Action Plan was provided to Council in November 2016 with a further update in a private report in March 2017. There has been significant progress within some of the themes, in particular ‘Creating an Environment to Encourage Economic Growth’. The priority actions identified and areas of progress are set out in Appendix 1. The key areas of progress are highlighted below. 4.2 Business Growth / Property Development Proposal - The Council agreed to submit formal proposals to the Scottish Government for the allocation of £3.625million for Hawick on 2 March 2017. The proposal for the Scottish Government funding is aimed at helping to deliver a variety of business infrastructure projects to help drive the local economy and to encourage business growth and new investment in the town. It is anticipated these projects will provide new job opportunities to benefit the local community as well as act as a catalyst for further potential property development in the future. 4.3 The proposal is split into two phases. The first phase focused on specific property development of sites in the town. The sites were prioritised for the Scottish Government funding due to their capacity to provide a range of modern attractive business space and the potential to provide a strong economic impact with additional job opportunities. These sites were also deliverable within the timescales required; and the overall capital works were in line with the funding available from the Scottish Government. The specific sites are not detailed in this report as the Council is currently in negotiation with property owners in regard to acquisition. 4.4 Acknowledging the importance of other key sites in the town centre, the Business Growth / Property Development proposal also includes a second phase. The purpose of the second phase is to commission and deliver feasibility studies on individual sites. It is proposed that these sites are
Page 253 Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 presented as priorities for the new South of Scotland Enterprise and Skills Vehicle. 4.5 Hawick Flood Protection Scheme – The Scheme will now progress to a formal consultation period for the outline design. Final approval of the design is scheduled for September 2017 with potential site completion in March 2022. The estimated overall costs of the Scheme continues to be refined as the detailed design develops. The Flood Protection Scheme will enable further regeneration and development opportunities for the town by safeguarding areas of land currently deemed at risk to flooding. 4.6 Business Gateway Relocation – The Business Gateway service will move to Tower Mill in Hawick and provide business support services from the 1 April 2017. The move will provide a high street location for the Business Gateway service for the first time. It makes it easier for people to drop in to see business advisors and will generate increased footfall in Hawick town centre. 4.7 Mobile Phone Coverage - Two planning applications have been submitted by EE to improve mobile phone coverage in two remote rural locations in and around Hawick. The first location is beside Wisp Flex Farm near Hawick. The second application relates to land west of Overshank Farm Cottage at Newcastleton. 4.8 Digital Boost - The Scottish Government has provided additional funds to continue the successful Digital Boost programme for a further year. The majority of the Digital Boost workshops will be run from Business Gateway’s new base at Tower Mill in Hawick. 4.9 Hawick Town Centre Marketing Pilot - Following the Ryden's Gap Analysis report in September 2016, the Council has commissioned property marketing consultants to undertake a small scale marketing exercise to contact some of the key target retail and leisure operators as a pilot approach. 5 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial There are no direct financial implications with this report. However, the development of key activities within the overall Action Plan will require potential further financial commitment from the Council and other partners. This will be dealt with in future reports, as appropriate. 5.2 Risk and Mitigations The Council has been taking a proactive approach towards progressing the Hawick Action Plan, in conjunction with stakeholders and local partners. The development of the business growth/ property development activity and corresponding funding application to Scottish Government has been a significant positive step forward. The Council will continue to work with stakeholders, partners, local businesses and the community, to engage in appropriate projects and provide positive support for the Hawick Action Plan. 5.3 Equalities It is anticipated that an Equalities Impact Assessment would be required in relation to the individual projects as they are developed in order to ensure that there are no adverse impacts due to race, disability, gender, age,
Page 254 Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 sexual orientation or religious/belief arising. 5.4 Acting Sustainably The Hawick Action Plan aims to make the economy of the town more sustainable by improving, its connectivity, its business infrastructure, the level of local skills and the tourism offering. If the Action Plan helps to secure additional economic activity and growth it will have contributed to the improved sustainability of the local economy and community. 5.5 Carbon Management Some of the actions contained in the Hawick Action Plan could have a positive impact on carbon emissions, particularly those actions noted above that lead to the development or redevelopment of ageing or vacant industrial properties. 5.6 Rural Proofing The Hawick Action Plan focuses on the town of Hawick but it is acknowledged that some of the actions, especially relating to digital connectivity, could have a positive impact on the surrounding rural areas. 5.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation There are no changes to be made to the Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation arising from this report. 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Legal Officer, the Chief Officer Audit and Risk, the Chief Officer HR and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and their comments have been incorporated into the report.
Approved by
Rob Dickson Signature ………………………………… Corporate Transformation and Services Director
Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Bryan McGrath Chief Officer Economic Development, Chief Executives – Tel 01835 826525
Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: Scottish Borders Council, 2 March 2016
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Bryan McGrath can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at Bryan McGrath, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, Melrose, TD6 0SA Tel: 01835 826525, email [email protected]
Page 255 Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 This page is intentionally left blank HAWICK ACTION PLAN APPENDIX 1 - March 2017 Theme 1. Great Place for Working & Investing 1. Make Hawick a 'Connected Place' ready to do business in the modern economy Ref Activity Stakeholder Outputs Outcomes LEAD Timescale MARCH 2017/ COMPLETE MARCH 2017/ ACTION PROGRESSING a Review current SBC, local Assessment of Clear timetable for SBC 2016/18 COMPLETE: Service Mapping - Phase 1: Mapping exercise carried ACTION: Review service provision/ coverage - Phase 2: Contact superfast broadband businesses, current roll-out, roll-out, Increased out by work placement student over the summer 2016 to map all businesses to gauge awareness/ uptake of Superfast Broadband. coverage and existing local Communication to capacity in areas available coverage and speeds for the main industrial areas and Identify 'notspots' to be addressed with service providers, including plans for increasing community businesses and or buildings individual premises for businesses. Commsworld. community on roll- identified as out schedule, important to COMPLETE: New Service Provider - Superfast Broadband services for Identify "hotspots" economy Glasgow, Edinburgh and Hawick have been unbundled at the local that need addressed excahnges as part of the new CGI contract. The new service provider, Commsworld, is aiming to provide an enhanced service for
Page 257 Page business and community users; and have been proactively contacting local businesses following the live launch date of 1 Oct 2016.
b Review current SBC, local Assessment of Clear timetable for South of 2017/19 Mobile phone discussions with all Mobile operators are being led by UPDATE: Two planning applications have been submitted by EE to mobile coverage and businesses, current roll-out, roll-out, Increased Scotland South of Scotland Alliance. improve mobile phone coverage in two remote rural locations in and existing plans for local Communication to capacity in areas Alliance Indications are that coverage should be improved across the whole around Hawick. The first location is beside Wisp Flex Farm at increasing community businesses and identified as of Scotland in the next two years through EE’s contract for Hummelknowhaugh near Hawick. The second application relates to community on roll- important to Emergency Services coverage. 4G is already available in some parts land west of Overshank Farm Cottage at Newcastleton. out schedule, economy of Hawick. Identify "hotspots" that need addressed
c Create free Wifi Feasibility study into Wi-fi hotspots in SBC 2017 /18 COMPLETE: WIFI Service - Public buildings have been identified that ACTION: Customer Research - Research is required to better Hotspots in key parts - SBC, local where these should key parts of the could provide Wi-Fi services. understand who will use WiFi in the town and when. of the the town businesses, be and their town local impact/effectiveness ACTION: Business Engagement - Promotional exercise is required to community, encourage private businesses e.g. cafes, hotels, restaurants to make tourists WIFI accessible/ available for their customers. Heart of Hawick can be used as an example to businesses about how they can benefit from making this available to clients.
d Make progress with Report covering the Information Scottish Govt 2018 COMPLETE: Borders Railway Extension Feasibility Scoping Study - UPDATE: Feasibility Scoping Study -Transport Scotland are leading scoping work in - SBC, local scope of a potential baseline in place Partnership agreement and funding package is in place to progress the Borders Corridors Study (which includes the potential for an regard to the businesses, project to facilitate a scoping of the feasibility study for the extension of the Borders extended rail link towards Hawick). They plan to have a consultant extension of the local future feasibility Railway from Tweedbank to Carlisle. appointed by 31/3/17 to undertake the work, with a proposed Borders Railway from community, study completion date of 1 November 2017. The study is classed as a pre- Tweedbank to Carlisle tourists feasibility study which focuses principally on data collection.
Hawick Action Plan -Update March 2017 300317 - Final 1. Working & Investing HAWICK ACTION PLAN APPENDIX 1 - March 2017
e Consider SBC, local Transport 2017/18 ROUTE UPGRADING/ MAINTENANCE ROUTE UPGRADING/ MAINTENANCE opportunities for businesses, Scotland COMPLETE: The Programme for Government announced in the ACTION: Lobbying - Continued lobbying by the A7 Action Group. improving A7 trunk local summer of 2016 highlighted the A7 as one of a number of routes road north and south community, A7 Action that would be reviewed. The Government will examine the case for of the town tourists, A7 Group improvements to the A1, A7, and A68 with a study to identify Action Group Borders transport requirements reporting by the end of 2017. SIGNAGE ACTION: Promotional signage - Some work is required to address SIGNAGE the A7/ A698 signage to make it more visually appealing and link Future COMPLETE: Promotional signage - The existing promotional signage with the potential town themes being explored. Hawick has been adopted by Future Hawick on the A7 and the A698. ACTION: Roads signage - SBC Roads/ Tourism Officers will review signage on the A7 to identify if there are any further signage opportunities. SBC Page 258 Page
Hawick Action Plan -Update March 2017 300317 - Final 1. Working & Investing HAWICK ACTION PLAN APPENDIX 1 - March 2017 2. Create an Environment to Encourage Economic Growth
Stakeholders LEAD Ref Activity Outputs Outcomes Timescale MARCH 2017/ COMPLETE MARCH 2017/ ACTION PROGRESSING Impacted organisation a Explore the benefits SE, SBC, Assessment of An enabler to SE/ SBC 2017/18 COMPLETE: Town Centre Regeneration Approach SBC has approved ACTION: Enterprise Areas - A review paper on Enterprise Areas has of an Enterprise Zone Businesses opportunity and doing business in a Town Centre Resilience Index and Regeneration Approach to been drafted by Council officers for initial discussion with in Hawick and comparison to other Hawick prioritise regeneration activity across the Scottish Borders. Hawick stakeholders. consider how similar similar areas is confirmed as one of the priority towns. A rolling three year Town UPDATE: Town Centre Regeneration Approach - SBC has approved benefits may be Centre Action Plan will be developed and approved annually. an initial Town Centre Regeneration Action Plan for 2017/18, which delivered through includes a number of key activities for Hawick. alternative approaches
b Identify future SE, SBC, Gap analysis showing Appropriate SE/ SBC 2016/18 COMPLETE: Property Survey - has been carried out by Scottish UPDATE: Scottish Government Funding for Regeneration - The Page 259 Page business property Business potential future business property Enterprise on behalf of an SE client on empty buildings in Hawick. Council agreed to submit formal proposals to the Scottish needs and match with Owners, business property available in the Scottish Enterprise has shared this report with SBC Officers for Government for the allocation of £3.625million for Hawick on 2 current availability building needs, existing and town to allow local internal use. March 2017. As part of the Scottish Government’s Programme for owners planned availability, businesses to grow Government, the town was allocated the share of a £10m fund, with and action required and inward COMPLETE: A Retail Gap Analysis Study for Hawick (and Galashiels) the stipulation that the funding must be committed by 31 March to meet gap investment to Town Centres undertaken by Ryden Consultants was complete in 2017. locate September 2016. The report made a number of recommendations The Scottish Government funds are aimed at helping to deliver a and identified potential target operators for the town. The variety of business infrastructure projects to help drive the local recommendations are being progressed as appropriate eg High economy and to encourage business growth and new investment in Street Loan Fund to reduce size of retail units. the town. It is anticipated these projects will provide new job opportunities to benefit the local community as well as act as a COMPLETE: Property Assessment - A meeting progressed in catalyst for further potential property development in the future. September with SBC Planning, Heritage and Property experts to discuss options on buildings and property in the town.
Identify future UPDATE: Feasibility Studies for Key Sites - The funding proposal to business property the Scottish Government also includes a second phase. The purpose needs and match with of the second phase will be the commissioning and delivery of current availability feasibility studies on individual sites. This element is being funded solely by the Council but has been presented to the Scottish Government as a future partnership development opportunity. It is proposed that these sites are presented as priorities for the new South of Scotland Enterprise and Skills Vehicle.
Hawick Action Plan -Update March 2017 300317 - Final 1. Working & Investing HAWICK ACTION PLAN APPENDIX 1 - March 2017
c Evaluation of the - SE Details of all empty Upgraded SBC 2017/18 COMPLETE: Gap analysis has been carried out on retail property by UPDATE: Scottish Government Funding for Regeneration - Over 20 empty - SBC properties, appearance of the Rydens consultant (as per 2b). properties were identified during the assessment process for the industrial/commercial assessment of town, new life for Scottish Government funding. The properties were scored and properties in the potential future uses, old buildings, COMPLETE: Following input from the Council and Scottish evaluated on the basis of economic impact; deliverability; evidence town, reasearching identification of spaces cleared for Enterprise, an Inward Investment business has bought the of demand and value for money. Further consideration will be given ownership, future those that can be future Teviotdale Mill and will set up a new knitwear operation on these to tackling and providing appropriate interventions for the empty / potential use and gap developed for 2d, development or premises. This will start in Spring 2017. redundant properties as a priority within the Action Plan. analysis identification of change of use those that can be demolished for better land use
UPDATE: Hawick Town Centre Marketing Pilot - Following the Ryden's Gap Analysis report in September 2016, the Council has commissioned property marketing consultants to undertake a small scale marketing exercise to contact some of the key target retail and leisure operators as a pilot approach. This project has been identified in the Council's Town Centre Regeneration Action Plan and funding earmarked within the Economic Development budget to support delivery.
d Development of an SE, SBC, Review of possible A thriving, SBC 2016/18 COMPLETE: A Pilot start-up incubator space has been approved in UPDATE: Potential properties have been assessed and considered incubator and Business areas for innovation, managed business Council offices in Rosetta Road, Peebles. It is intended that this will as part of the evaluation of projects that could be delivered with the innovation centre to Owners, research opportunity facility, Space for be replicated in other towns – with Hawick earmarked as the next additional Scottish Government funding. Business Gateway has also encourage business building for building use, new business potential location. commissioned work to be done on modelling an incubation innovation - Borders owners development, a programme for the Scottish Borders which will fit into any future Business space for COMPLETE: Innovation Centre - Talks have been held with Heriot Incubation Centre in the town. Improvement Base innovation around Watt University, who are planning an Innovation Centre in specific areas Galashiels. They welcomed SBC's involvement; and will discuss a hub UPDATE: Business Gateway Relocation - The Business Gateway
Page 260 Page relating to the and spoke approach with potentially a smaller centre in Hawick. service will move to Tower Mill in Hawick and provide business town e.g. Textiles, Talks have started with Borders College about using their Hawick support services from the 1 April 2017. The move will provide a high energy. Creation Campus for potential Innovation projects. street location for the Business Gateway service for the first time of a modern and will make it easier for people to drop in to see the business facility leading the advisors and generate increased footfall in Hawick town centre. way for future Working in partnership with Live Borders, Business Gateway will development increase delivery of workshops to business people and entrepreneurs across the Scottish Borders.
Hawick Action Plan -Update March 2017 300317 - Final 1. Working & Investing HAWICK ACTION PLAN APPENDIX 1 - March 2017 3. Create an Innovative Flood Protection Scheme
Stakeholders LEAD Ref Activity Outputs Outcomes Timescale MARCH 2017/ COMPLETE MARCH 2017/ ACTION PROGRESSING Impacted organisation Support the current SBC 2016/19 COMPLETE: Scottish Government Funding Confirmation - The first UPDATE: Flood Protection Scheme - The Council approved the final activity that is part of funding for the Hawick Flood Protection Scheme was outline design of the flood protection scheme on 2 March 2017, creating an confirmed by the Scottish Government in August 2016. The which allows the publication of the scheme to progress giving a innovative plan to Government has provided an initial £1.342million to the project as a formal 28 days for objections. The project team have aimed to address the flood general capital grant in 2016/17. The scheme will receive 80 per minimise objections by carrying out extensive proactive engagement protection of the cent (£29.2m) of the overall project costs from the Government, with statutory consultees and the community in the last two years to town. This should which currently stands at £36.4m. overcome key concerns. be supported where possible by the COMPLETE: A public exhibition was hosted over two days in Hawick Councillors will be asked to give final approval for the scheme in Future flood Page 261 Page Hawick Action Plan Town Hall and a Riverside Walk was organised for the Hawick Flood September 2017. Approval will decide the scheme’s programme and protection, Protection Scheme to give members of the public the opportunity to if the project will be successfully funded by the Scottish Government SBC, innovative Flood protection for make their views known on the scheme. Over 700 people attended (potentially up to 80%). The estimated overall costs of the scheme community, business and a businesses and the exhibition. continue to be refined as the detailed design develops. The businesses tourism ideas, householders completion of the project, currently scheduled for March 2022, renewable energy COMPLETE: The third Hawick FPS Ground Investigation contract which will enable further regeneration and development options and reuse progressed over 4 weeks in late Sept/ early Oct to provide the design opportunities for the town. of buildings team with additional data to ensure the new flood defence wall design is based on as accurate information as possible. There may also be a link to the Innovation Centre above as there may be opportunities around using the river for energy creation.
Hawick Action Plan -Update March 2017 300317 - Final 1. Working & Investing HAWICK ACTION PLAN
Theme 2. Great Place for Living & Learning
1. Provide a suitable environment to retain school leavers and to attract new workers into the area
Ref Activity Stakeholder Outputs Outcomes LEAD Timescale MARCH 2017/ COMPLETE MARCH 2017/ ACTION PROGRESSING a Consider how to SDS, SBC, BC, Survey of young people to A detailed plan for SBC / SDS 2016/18' COMPLETE: Young Enterprise Scotland is being relaunched in the ACTION: Career Pathways - Further discussion is required to retain young people HWU identify what will make young people Borders to encourage school pupils to look at a business as an determine the appropriate promotion of career pathways for in, and attract them - them stay / encourage showing opportunity when they leave school. YES also teaches some young people ie - should the focus be on retaining young people in back to, the area and them to return . opportunities excellent life skills that will be of use to future employers. the town/region when they leave school; or on encouraging them ensure they have the Communication to which would Unfortunately no High Schools in the Region took advantage of the to learn new skills outside of the town/region and bring these back skills local businesses employers about attract them to opportunity for 2016/17. The YES Board will continue to meet and when they are older? need apprenticeship schemes. stay in the town aim to have schools on the programme for the next session. This should also form a key part of an Inward Investment Closer working between and / or return eg marketing message. employers and further graduates education to develop courses required
b Attract people from SBC, Creation of a marketing Enlarging the SBC / SDS 2017/19 ACTION: This action relies on progressing other actions in the outside the Scottish Employers campaign to promote the labour pool, Action Plan to ensure that there are a number of key work related Borders to come to town/region to people attracting new attractors to encourage people to come to Hawick. The work work in Hawick looking to develop their skills and new around Incubators, Innovation centres and Inward Investment career/family life families into the opportunities should help deliver this action. Borders, facilitating economic growth
c Deliver digital skills to SBC, Borders A coordinated programme More people with Borders 2016/18 COMPLETE: Digital Boost - Business Gateway is delivering Digital UPDATE: Digital Boost - The Scottish Government has provided all age groups to College, SDS, of digital skills training for higher level digital College Boost workshops and has had 190 people attending these so far in additional funds to continue the successful Digital Boost ensure that the Scottish Govt businesses and individuals skills, more 2016 (Borders wide). programme for a further year. The majority of the Digital Boost Page 262 Page workforce has the to raise skills base businesses utilising workshops will be run from Business Gateway’s new base in Tower skills required for a higher level digital COMPLETE: Business Skills Requirement - Through the Employer Mill, Hawick. digital future skills Offer Group, work has been progressed to encourage partners to work together to identify the digital skills needs of local businesses and to ensure that Borders College is continuing to make appropriate courses available.
d Ensure local training BC, HWU, SE, Deliver a process that A more skilled Borders 2017/18 COMPLETE: Centre for Business Development - Borders College AS ABOVE providers are SBC, SDS enables employers to workforce ready College have opened a Centre for Business Development in their Hawick delivering the courses easily inform further for jobs created in campus. This will allow their commercially focussed training arm to that businesses education institutions the area address the needs of businesses and ensure relevant training is require what future skills offered. This is being launched on 29 October. requirements they have for employees (young people and existing employees)
Hawick Action Plan -Update March 2017 300317 - Final 2. Living & Learning HAWICK ACTION PLAN
Theme 3. Great Destination to Visit
1. Make Hawick a great place to visit and stay
Ref Activity Stakeholder Outputs Outcomes LEAD Timescale MARCH 2017/ COMPLETE MARCH 2017/ ACTION PROGRESSING a Working with local VS, SBC, Collate details of attractions and A strong tourist VS/ SBC 2016/19 COMPLETE: Tourism Marketing - A Workshop was held in UPDATE: Tourism Marketing - At a marketing workshop the businesses, identify Businesses experiences, both existing and in offering available September, facilitated by Brightlight Marketing. 40 businesses following actions were identified as priorities: what the tourism decelopment, and other essential to both visitors were invited, with 6 attending. The meeting addressed the - Develop a tourism group of key operators offer is, agree what tourist facilities and community to current tourism offering for the town and was very positive - Invite presentations from other tourism/ food related groups the gaps are and how help sell the town, with a number of the attendees keen to be involved in any to understand best practice to fill them more visitors steering group going forward. A report has been completed - Cross-sell other Hawick businesses making the and a number of key actions have been identified to progress. - Develop a marketing strategy & plan for the town businesses more - Develop an events calendar for the town
Page 263 Page secure - Work with interested SMEs in Hawick - Look at 2017 as a launch pad with new developments - relaunch of Wilton Lodge Park; and the opening of the Distillery.
This project has been identified in the Council's Town Centre Regeneration Action Plan and funding earmarked within the Economic Development budget to support implementation via the private sector.
b Work with local VS, SBC, Collate information held on bed Accommodation VS/ SBC 2016/17 COMPLETE: Hotel Accommodation - Two hotels have re- ACTION: Visitor Accommodation - Further assessment required tourism operators to Businesses spaces available in Hawick, find available for the opened in the town in 2016 – Mansfield House Hotel (12 as to the current capacity and the demand/ type of visitor address the issue of a out from Mansfield House Hotel increased number rooms) and Balcary House (10 rooms). accommodation required (including business and tourist). lack of hotel owners what their intentions are of visitors accommodation
c Work with local SBC, identification of main problems, Attractive High VS/ SBC 2017/19 COMPLETE: Scottish Borders High Street Loan Support Fund - UPDATE: Scottish Borders HIgh Street Loan Fund for Hawick - businesses to address Businesses, meeting with owners of empty street for visitors SBC has approved funding for a Scottish Borders High Street SBC is currently making contact with key property owners for issues facing the High Future properties, use of Business and for new Future Loan Support Fund for Hawick for 2017/18. This is a new pilot the High Street Loan Fund for Hawick. This is a pilot scheme for Street, with shop Hawick Gateway shop jackets, produce businesses to start Hawick initiative to encourage property owners to convert larger 2017/18 complemented by Business Grant support. closures and plan for longer term premises into smaller units. This will be complemented by attractiveness of the development of the street SBC Business Grant support to businesses, who wish to relocate/ UPDATE: Aldi Development/Developer Contribution - £18K has buildings start up in the new smaller units. been secured to progress improved signage, pedestrian links or a Shop Front Improvement scheme to encourage footfall onto COMPLETE: Theme Town - An initial workshop has been held the High Street. This project will be progressed in 2017/18 with with local businesses investigating the potential for a themed input from the community. town opportunity. UPDATE: The potential has been identified to progress a COMPLETE: Retail Workshops - Future Hawick are holding two possible Hawick 'Townscape Heritage' programme for the town retail workshops in November 2016 - the aim is to provide centre focusing on a 5 year programme to “Redefine & information to ease trade and provide options for attracting Reinvigorate Hawick High Street". There is potential funding more customers. Various actions have been suggested by the from Heritage Lottery Funding and other sources. The 2 stage private sector and the workshop aims to agree how these can application process takes approx 18-24 months. Resources have be prioritised/ delivered. been earmarked within the Economic Development budget to support the development of the initial phase 1 funding bid. COMPLETE: Theme Town - Meetings have been held to progress this option with town centre businesses. The themed approach could be delivered as part of the tourism marketing activity above.
Hawick Action Plan -Update March 2017 300317 - Final Great Destination to Visit This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14
CONSULTATION ON POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO COUNCILLORS CODE OF CONDUCT
Report by Service Director Regulatory Services
SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL
30 March 2017
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
1.1 This report seeks Members views on proposed amendments to the Councillors’ Code of conduct.
1.2 The Scottish Government has published a consultation on possible amendments to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct to allow Councillors to continue to participate in quasi-judicial decisions without there being a conflict of interest in instances where they represent the council on the board of an external organisation. At present the Code precludes Members from participating in such decisions except in a number of specified cases.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 I recommend that the Council:-
(a) Agrees to respond advising that on balance it is minded to support the retention of the Code in its current form.
(b) Agrees to recommend that if the Scottish Government is minded to amend the Code that this should be based on a case by case consideration of individual requests and addition of individual named bodies to Section 5.18 (2) of the Code rather than a general exclusion for all outside bodies.
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 265 1 3 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Code of Conduct permits Members who have been nominated or appointed by the Council to sit on the board of an outside body to take part in discussions, and to vote upon, any matter relating to the body in question provided they declare an interest at the relevant meeting. However this does not currently extend to matters of a quasi-judicial or regulatory nature such as applying for a license, consent or approval other than very limited circumstances.
3.2 The Scottish Government is now seeking views on whether the specific exclusion, which permits Members to participate in matters relating to the body to which they have been appointed or nominated, should be extended to include participation in quasi-judicial and regulatory matters.
3.3 This question has emerged from a specific request by Aberdeen City Council on behalf of Nestrans (the North East Scotland Regional Transport Partnership) to the Standards Commission to grant a dispensation to allow Members of Nestrans who are councillors to take part in the Council’s consideration of quasi-judicial matters in which Nestrans has an interest. The Scottish Government’s consultation refers to this request as an example of where the Code appears to be causing difficulties for some Members but the consultation is broader in its scope potentially applying to all outside bodies to which Members may have been nominated or appointed.
4 CONSIDERATION
4.1 The existing terms of the Code of Conduct have not presented significant difficulties for Scottish Borders Council nor for any of the outside bodies to which members have been appointed or nominated. This may in part be due to the different operating arrangements that exist for example with Sestrans (South East Scotland Regional Transport Partnership) which operates under a different Model to other RTPS and which rarely presents anything of a quasi-judicial nature to the Council for determination.
4.2 The terms of the Code are predicated on the premise that public confidence in a local authority is damaged by perception that a Council’s decisions are substantially influenced by factors other than the public interest. While Members may consider that this is not prejudiced by their membership of an outside body where they may also be reflecting or representing the public interest, it is unclear whether the nuances of such an argument would always be clear to a member of the general public.
4.3 The existing arrangements are clear and transparent and avoid any perception that decisions on quasi-judicial matters are unduly influenced by extraneous factors or particular interest groups. Amending the Code as suggested could undermine that position. The Council has not experienced particular problems as a result of applying the current Code and therefore questions whether amending the Code is necessary or appropriate.
4.4 If Scottish Ministers consider that the Code should be amended it is recommended that this should be on the basis of a case by case
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 266 2 assessment of individual requests and addition of individual named bodies to Section 5.18 (2) of the Code rather than a general exclusion for all outside bodies.
5 IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Financial
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
5.2 Risk and Mitigations
There is a risk that public confidence in the impartiality of quasi-judicial decision making by the Council may be undermined by the suggested amendments to the Code.
5.3 Equalities
There are no direct adverse equality implications arising from this report.
5.4 Acting Sustainably
There are no direct economic, social or environmental effects arising from this report.
5.5 Carbon Management
There are no effects on carbon emissions arising from this report.
5.6 Rural Proofing
This report does not relate to new or amended policy or strategy and as a result rural proofing is not an applicable consideration.
5.7 Changes to Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation
There are no changes required to the Council’s Scheme of Administration or Scheme of Delegation as a result of this report.
6 CONSULTATION
6.1 The Chief Financial Officer, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Legal Officer, the Chief Officer Audit and Risk, the Chief Officer HR and the Clerk to the Council are being consulted and their comments will be incorporated into this report.
Approved by
Brian Frater Service Director Regulatory Services Signature .………………………………..
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 267 3 Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number B Frater Service Director Regulatory Services Ext 5067
Background Papers: None Previous Minute Reference: None
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Jacqueline Whitelaw can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies.
Contact us at: Jacqueline Whitelaw, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells. Tel: 01835 825431
Scottish Borders Council – 30 March 2017 Page 268 4 Agenda Item 15
EARLY RETIREMENT/VOLUNTARY SEVERANCE
Report by Chief Executive Scottish Borders Council
30 March 2017
1 PURPOSE AND SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks approval for 12 applications for staff who have requested to leave Live Borders through the early retirement/ voluntary severance programme. 1.2 Council agreed a revised policy for both compulsory redundancy and early retirement/voluntary severance schemes in August 2010. The scheme was open to all staff, except teachers. It was extended to teachers for the period between January and March 2015. As part of the Council’s Financial and People plans the early retirement/voluntary severance scheme is being operated with a focused approach to seeking applications from staff in areas where specific budget reductions have been identified. 1.3 Live Borders were allocated management fee savings as part of SBC’s 2017/18 Financial planning process, reflecting the local government settlement. To enable that level of saving to be achieved in the 2017/18 financial year, Live Borders sought support from SBC to open the ER/VS programme for a limited period of time with any one-off costs being funded by SBC. Live Borders opened the ER/VS scheme to their employees, at the same time as undertaking a review of their management structure and methods of delivery. 1.4 In January 2017, 32 applications were received of which 12 are supported by the Councils Corporate Management Team. 1.5 Should the 12 applications be agreed, total one-off costs of £ 338,670 will be incurred and total direct recurring employee cost savings of £320,334 will be delivered each full year, providing an overall payback period of 1.06 years. Savings from the 12 applications are considered necessary to allow Live Borders to meet it savings target for 2017-18. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Council approves the 12 applications as detailed in Table 1 of paragraph 4.1 in this report, with the associated costs being met from the Council’s ER/VS budget for 2016/17 of £ 338,670.
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 269 3 EARLY RETIREMENTS AND VOLUNTEERS FOR SEVERANCE 3.1 At its meeting of 19th August 2010, Scottish Borders Council agreed a revised policy for both compulsory redundancy and early retirement/voluntary severance schemes, including the creation of a budget provision to fund such applications in future years. Following this, the Executive agreed that in order to enable the Council to deliver an affordable balanced financial plan for 2012/13 and beyond, this revised policy would be open to all staff indefinitely and teachers as required, which would allow the organisation to reduce its overall staff numbers. From January 2016, applications are only being considered from staff in certain areas who have been invited to apply. Definitions (a) Early Retirement: Voluntary retirements in the interests of efficiency for staff over the age of 50 who can access pension (b) Voluntary Severance: Where staff are allowed to volunteer to leave the organisation with a compensation payment. This payment is based on age and length of service and may be paid alongside early retirement. 4 PROPOSALS 4.1 A summary of the approved applications giving costs and FTE equivalent is summarised below in Table 1 along with proposed leaving dates. A post will be deleted on each occasion in order to achieve the permanent savings and enable implementation of proposed structure.
Table 1 – Application Summary
Proposed Annual Severance Strain on cost of Payback Actual leaving Post Title Saving Cost Fund release in years Hours FTE Date Senior Duty Manager £33,331 £22,006 £18,708 £40,714 1.22 37 1.00 31.3.17 Admin Assistant £16,238 £10,721 £19,439 £30,160 1.86 21 0.57 31.3.17 Senior Clerical Officer £16,308 £11,344 £4,614 £15,958 0.98 28 0.76 31.3.17 Curator £34,226 £24,211 £0 £24,211 0.71 28 0.76 31.3.17 Libraries and Information Assistant £20,384 £14,420 £0 £14,420 0.71 35 0.95 31.3.17 Assistant Librarian £31,294 £14,389 £9,541 £23,930 0.76 35 0.95 31.3.17 Visual Arts Officer £20,725 £25,272 £0 £25,272 1.22 35 0.95 31.3.17 Communities £35,725 £24,429 £6,389 £30,818 0.86 35 0.95 31.3.17
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 270 Librarian Performing Arts Co-ordinator £25,670 £14,224 £46,773 £60,997 2.38 21 0.57 31.3.17 Senior Librarian £21,392 £15,132 £1,132 £16,264 0.76 17.5 0.47 31.3.17 Duty Manager £22,257 £12,027 £0 £12,027 0.54 37 1.00 31.3.17 Marketing & Operations £42,783 £21,193 £22,707 £43,899 1.03 35 0.95 30.6.17 Manager (HoH)
Total £320,334 £209,368 £129,302 £338,670 1.06 365 9.85
5 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial
(a) The purpose is to facilitate the reduction in overall employment costs to Live Borders. As detailed above, an assessment has been made of potential savings and considered against the estimated costs incurred and overall efficiency in terms of non-financial benefits. It has been confirmed that there is sufficient funding available within the Council’s 2016/17 ER/VS budget to meet the cost of these applications. (b) In total, £320,334 of direct recurring employee cost savings will be delivered to Live Borders in each full year including 2017/18 should the above 12 applications be accepted. (c) The financial payback associated with each of the proposals above varies between 0.54 years and 2.38 years, however the overall payback period for all staff is 1.06 years. This is a key proposal to meet the budget savings requirement for Live Borders. The associated costs of £338,670 will be met by SBC through the 2016/17 ER/VS provision. (d) As part of the 2017/18 Financial planning process a management fee reduction of £521k was agreed with Live Borders. From the increased funding allocation announced by the Scottish Government in early February Scottish Borders Council allocated £200k to Live Borders which will be used to support savings delivery. 5.2 Risk and Mitigations
(a) The risks to Live Borders output and performance arising from the proposed resource reductions has been considered, evaluated and managed as part of the restructuring and relevant planning process to enable the CEO and Executive Team of Live Borders to support the ER/VS applications. It should be noted that the decision to restructure is within the remit of the Live Borders Board. (b) If approval to proceed with the ER/VS is not given, the savings for Live Borders in 2017/18 will not be fully realised in
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 271 the financial year 2017/18. (c) As part of the monitoring of ER/VS decisions it is important that Members are aware of the impact on the composition of pension scheme membership, arising through people granted ER/VS leaving the service of Live Borders. (d) Should the balance of pension fund membership change substantially due to ER/VS decisions there may be a need to change the funding strategy of the pension fund towards more income generating investments. (e) The Local Government pension fund continues to keep the composition of membership under review to ensure that the future funding strategy is optimised with respect to the relative number of active scheme members to pensioners drawing benefits. 5.3 Equalities An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out on this proposal and it is anticipated that there are no adverse equality implications. 5.4 Acting Sustainably There are no economic, environmental or social effects. 5.5 Carbon Management There are no effects on the Council’s carbon emissions. 5.6 Rural Proofing Not applicable 5.7 Changes to the Service Provision Agreement There are no changes to be made to the Service Provision Agreement arising from the recommendations in this report. 6 CONSULTATION 6.1 Within Live Borders, the Executive Team and HR Manager have been consulted and their comments have been incorporated into this final report. Within Council, the Chief Financial Officer, the Monitoring Officer, the Chief Legal Officer, the Chief Officer Audit and Risk, the Chief Officer HR, and the Clerk to the Council have been consulted and their comments have been incorporated into the final report.
Approved by
Tracey Logan Chief Executive Signature …………………………………..
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 272 Author(s) Name Designation and Contact Number Linda Ross Director of Business Services, 01896 661166
Background Papers: Nil Previous Minute Reference: Council August 2010
Note – You can get this document on tape, in Braille, large print and various computer formats by contacting the address below. Clair Hepburn can also give information on other language translations as well as providing additional copies. Contact Clair Hepburn, Chief Officer HR, Human Resources, Council Headquarters, Newtown St Boswells, TD6 0SA. 01835 826600.
Scottish Borders Council, 30 March 2017 Page 273 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 19
Document is Restricted
Page 275 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 21
Document is Restricted
Page 279 This page is intentionally left blank