The Scottish Government

Listen

Opencast Coal and Related Minerals
The Operation and Effectiveness of National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 16:

Alan Pollock, DKA Planning

This document is also available in pdf format (104k)

Aims

The broad aims of the study were :

Methodology

The study required the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, which was achieved through a combination of:

General findings

The study found that NPPG16 has been remarkably well received and enjoys the general support of a surprisingly wide range of stakeholders. Such support is typically qualified by a view that it was a useful starting point in 1999, but is now in need of updating to reflect a changing environmental and policy context.

There is evidence to suggest that communities often continue to consider themselves under threat from opencast coal extraction. However, there is also evidence to suggest that coal companies regard the prospects of obtaining planning permission significantly reduced since the introduction of NPPG16.

The initial development of NPPG16 separate from general minerals guidance contained in NPPG4 was both appropriate and widely supported. It was based on recognition of the unique characteristics of opencast coal development that required an approach tailored to the specific issues raised, and the need for specific measures to protect local communities potentially affected by such development. The publication of a separate NPPG devoted to the subject under-scored the commitment of the Scottish Executive to addressing these issues. That position has not changed, but now requires reinforcement in the light of experience.

Although NPPG4 is now the subject of review, it is strongly recommended that guidance on opencast coal development remains separate. It is of note that a similar view has been taken in England and Wales. Integration of guidance into a single SPP would convey an unfortunate impression that relative priorities had changed, and less emphasis now needed to be placed on opencast coal issues.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that NPPG16 has created a similar situation to that found in England, notably that it has become increasingly difficult to find appropriate sites in many areas, leading to increasing concentration of working in particular areas, where the various policy criteria can be met.

However, its full potential has not been realised in some areas, primarily through significant delays by planning authorities failing to translate the national intentions through the development plan system to local level. Where this has not occurred, decisions have continued to be taken on an ad-hoc basis, creating an unacceptable level of uncertainty for both local communities and the coal industry. The effectiveness of national guidance is ultimately dependant on its translation through the development plan system to guide local decisions. It is therefore a key conclusion of this study that the effectiveness of NPPG16 has been reduced in some parts of Scotland, through the failure of a number of planning authorities to review local plan policy frameworks with the degree of urgency required by what remains a controversial but important form of development.

When published in 1999, NPPG16 represented a significant development in policy terms, which sought to achieve a more appropriate balance between the protection of local communities and the environment and the continuing contribution of coal to meeting energy needs, security and diversity. While the need to maintain that balance remains, it is evident that subsequent policy initiatives have overtaken and outdated some elements of the guidance provided in NPPG16. As a consequence it is appropriate to now revisit NPPG16 to ensure that it continues to accurately reflect current and emerging policy agendas.

Recommendations

It is recommended that NPPG16 is the subject of review by the Scottish Executive to reflect current policy agendas, legislative and associated changes introduced since publication and to introduce changes appropriate in the light of experience in practice. In doing so, it is of particular importance that any such review builds on the strengths of the existing guidance, and places particular emphasis on the mechanisms for delivery at local level.

It is recommended that the fundamental policy objectives remain, but could be enhanced to incorporate emerging notions of social and environmental justice and to reflect current development in the application of sustainability concepts in practice.

It is recommended that the principal tests introduced in NPPG16 should remain, but some amendment in wording would be beneficial to remove actual or alleged ambiguity in how the two key tests are applied. More fundamentally, it is further recommended that the exceptions to the tests are removed as "exceptional circumstances" but should be regarded as part of the second test, namely that the matters identified in paragraph 26, are considered as part of the local or community benefits. A new paragraph explicitly stating this position would be required. This will have the effect of bringing Scottish guidance into line with that used in England. In practice, it is not considered that any significant change is actually being made through this suggested alteration, but it may be seen to address the concerns of those who would claim that Scottish guidance is "weaker" than its English equivalent.

For similar reasons, it is recommended that the introduction to the tests is simplified, and clarified through rewording. In reality, there is no difference in effect between the existing terminology and a clear statement that "there will normally be a policy presumption against opencast working, unless the following tests are met..." It is suggested that adoption of this form of words would not alter the intention of Government, nor would it make it any easier or more difficult for developers to obtain planning permission.

It is recommended that the reference to communities representing 10 or more houses be removed, for the reason that there is an implication than individual houses should be given less protection. In reality, it is clearly evident that planning authorities, developers, objectors and Scottish Executive Reporters all place equal weigh on the effects of development on residential property regardless of the locality circumstances or number of houses involved.

In order to ensure consistency in the implementation of national guidance at local level, it is recommended that the Scottish Executive might wish to periodically review the Notification of Applications Direction.

It is recommended that consideration be given requiring selected planning authorities to promote formal alterations to their adopted local plans to fully reflect the requirements of NPPG16. The Scottish Ministers may wish to require or undertake such alterations under the powers given in Sections 14 or 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Any such action should only relate to those planning authorities where there is little prospect of formal adoption in the next 12 months.

It is recommended that changes are now made to NPPG16. These changes arise from: