Dr. Fred Logue:

I agree there needs to be much clearer language in the Bill about what exactly the planning statements are meant to do. One suggestion is to break them down into different categories, with statements for planning, development management and so on. The key is to have coherence between the tiers in the planning system. As we go from the highest to the lowest tier, the level of detail increases and the degree of freedom should increase. The national planning framework sets broad targets for population, the regional spatial economic strategies deal with more settlement-level policy, and then we get down to the development plans and local area plans. The level of detail increases as we go down through the tiers. We need to figure out what the planning statements are meant to achieve within that. We also need to prevent a system in which they get out of line with each other, which would create a conflict. Ultimately, for the people who live in towns and villages, the development plan governs their expectation.

When we are looking at what has been done in Copenhagen or Freiburg, for example, it is clear that what we need to do is stick to our plans. The issue with the SHDs is that we did not stick to the plan.

A total of 90% of judicial reviews of SHDs were on proposed material contraventions of development plans. I can only think of one or two examples where the board disagreed with the proposals to contravene materially. That kind of disrupted the system. Whether it was positive or negative, it caused a huge amount of conflict in the system.