Local landscape designations in Scotland: Opportunity or barrier to effective landscape management?

Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

Local landscape designations in Scotland: Opportunity or barrier to effective landscape management? Alister Scott a,∗ , Peter Shannon b a

Rural Planning and Policy, University of Aberdeen (Visiting Researcher Macaulay Insititute), Department of Geography & Environment, University of Aberdeen Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen, AB24 3UF Scotland, United Kingdom b Macaulay Institute, United Kingdom Received 26 June 2006; received in revised form 6 December 2006; accepted 10 January 2007 Available online 20 February 2007

Abstract This paper assesses the efficacy and relevance of local landscape designations in Scotland as landscape management tools. Local landscape designations are a generic term applied to landscapes designated by local authorities for reasons of their rarity, representativeness or variety. Yet they remain neglected in planning research and policy evaluation and as designations sit uneasily with the rationale of the European Landscape Convention. Using interviews with planning officers, development plan policy analyses and spatial data a critical assessment of their operation is undertaken. The results reveal that, although national guidance favours their judicious and flexible use for positive land use planning, local authority implementation is characterised by inconsistent and protectionist stances. There is an inherent lack of strategic planning, management and public involvement in designation and practice which obfuscates their overall identity, integrity and purpose. This situation is exacerbated by the wider neglect of landscape matters in Scotland, with authorities lacking substantive tools and resources for evaluation and innovation when compared with economic and social imperatives. We conclude that local landscape designations are not meeting their full potential and argue for a more collaborative, management orientated, community-led focus on economic development, amenity and landscape enhancement set within wider rejuvenation of the landscape agenda. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Protected areas; Non-statutory; Landscape reform

1. Introduction The ‘protected areas’ approach is now widely recognised and practised for nature conservation and landscape planning purposes (Wragg, 2000). Internationally protected landscapes have become firmly established as legitimate policy instruments as reflected in the World Heritage Convention (1972) and the European Landscape Convention (2000) (Jensen, 2006; Hamin, 2002; Phillips and Clarke, 2004). Their operation, through de jure or de facto protection from development or other activities likely to damage their natural, landscape or cultural character, varies according to the category of protection, the efficacy of institutional responses and their local acceptability (Fall,

∗

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Scott), [email protected] (P. Shannon). 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.008

2003; Rodrigues et al., 2004; Tickle and Clark, 2000; Selman, 2004). In particular policy imperatives now require participatory approaches involving stakeholders and the general public as core components of planning and management (Scott, 2003; Selman, 2004). This paper focuses attention on protected landscapes at the local level under sole jurisdiction of local authorities where there appears to be a significant gap in the research and policy literature both in a UK and global context. Designation responses operate at a range of scales with associated bureaucracy and institutional intervention; international (UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites); European (RAMSAR, Natura 2000); national (national parks and nature reserves); regional (regional parks and natural parks) and local (urban parks and local landscape designations (LLDs)) which, by reason of designation have particular natural, cultural, aesthetic or recreational qualities of wider societal value. Bishop et al. (1995) suggest that the local scale non-statutory designations have a particular advantage of flexibility as planning tools;

258

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

Fig. 1. International Union for the Conservation of Nature Category V Landscape protection (IUCN, 2000).

quicker to implement than the more bureaucratic national and regional statutory designations which cover multiple administrations and involve complex protocols for their designation and management. Indeed, the complexity and number of protected area categories has increased over the past 10 years with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) now defining six management categories of protected landscape (IUCN, 2000). This research is located within Category V (Protected Landscape or Seascape), where landscapes are in managed, multiple use areas. Category V (Fig. 1) landscapes contain both statutory and non-statutory designation responses. Set within the European context, protected landscape management and policy has been articulated and operationalised somewhat differently to other countries given limitations of space and the limited extent of pristine nature/wilderness (Hamin, 2002). Concepts of multifunctionality, interdependence and multiple use characterise the policy response where the aims are to protect, enhance and retain local character and culture, to encourage the development of civil society and to provide for economic development. Such sentiments have been enshrined in the European Landscape Convention with its emphasis on holism, quality of life and increased public participation (Council of Europe, 2000). The European Landscapes Convention introduces a three-pronged approach towards landscape policy and governance. First, landscape protection is afforded to landscapes of outstanding value which corresponds with statutory protected sites. Second, landscape management is advocated as a suitable approach for most areas of rural Europe where the landscapes, though not outstanding, still retain distinctive qualities. Third, landscape planning where the focus is on creating and enhancing degraded landscapes. Phillips (1999) sees this as switching the focus from direction and control to facilitation and collaborative management of our landscapes; and such initiatives are now common place in most European member state responses (La Freniere, 1997). Consequently, the LLD designation response within the UK sits uneasily with the emphasis on collaborative landscape management approaches (Selman, 2004). European approaches to landscape protection within member countries are nevertheless, extremely variable and subject to particular cultural influences. For example countries with more wilderness areas and/or stricter interpretations of conservation tend to use Category IV (Norway, Ireland, Finland, Netherlands), whereas Austria, France and UK rely heavily on Category V as they are subject to more intensive use and pressures (Hamin, 2002). The tools and approaches to landscape protection also vary. For example much of Europe is characterised by regional and collaborative approaches to landscape

protection, with limited evidence of local authority created and managed designations (Hamin, 2002). Here facilitation replaces statutory direction with areas such as regional and nature parks established involving management plans and programmes with significant degrees of stakeholder involvement and public participation (Agger, 2001; La Freniere, 1997). Within the UK such collaborative landscape management is largely confined to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), National Scenic Areas, National and Regional Parks and Green Belts. However, a far more insular approach is taken by local authorities towards the protection of their own landscapes which escape such designations (Scott and Bullen, 2004). These differences in scale and approach are interesting and inform our key research question particularly in light of the absence of such designations in other European states. Fundamentally do LLDs offer added value to landscape protection and enhancement at the local level? This research assesses how far local authorities’ attitudes and policy responses regarding the status of LLDs accords with emerging guidance and evaluates the mechanisms in place for their conservation and enhancement. Widely used by local authorities since the 1960s for landscape management in the UK, LLDs remain significantly hidden from public and policy debate and academic study (Scott and Bullen, 2004; Scott, 2001). Yet, in theory, they offer a potential avenue within which local landscape priorities can be identified and realised in policy terms. A working definition of LLDs sees these landscapes as being “of at least county importance for reasons of their rarity, representativeness or variety” (Cobham Resource Consultants, 1993: 3.14). What limited evidence there is, mainly focussed on Wales, tends to suggest that such designations are failing to deliver substantive conservation or rural development benefits due to lack of public awareness, incentives and structures for effective management (Scott, 2001; Scott and Bullen, 2004; Tickle and Clark, 2000; OECD, 2004). As landscape management tools, LLDs sit beneath the national tier of designations (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Belts and National Scenic Areas (Scotland)) and involve relatively simple procedures for designation covering a range of landscape types and functions (Bishop et al., 1995; Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland, 2005). Local designations, in comparison to their national counterparts have largely operated through local authority-led initiatives with little research or evaluation into their efficacy and added value in planning practice (Scott and Bullen, 2004). At a national level in England and Wales there are considerable reservations about the value and continued use of LLDs in their published guidance (ODPM, 2003, 2005; Countryside Agency/Rural Development Commission, 1998). This contrasts

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

with the more positive line taken by the Scottish Executive and its agencies favouring a more strategic and positive approach as components of rural development (Scottish Executive, 2005; Scottish Natural Heritage/Historic Scotland, 2005). This paper considers the Scottish experience via an in-depth assessment of planners attitudes and policy responses to LLDs across a range of rural and urban local authorities. The paper begins with a general policy review of local landscape designations. The core of the paper then focuses on the results of primary and secondary data obtained from all 32 local authorities in Scotland, together with an assessment of the recently published SNH/HS guidance (2005). Four key aims lie behind the paper. • to identify and explain current approaches to LLD use and designation in Scotland; • to critically assess LLDs as planning and landscape management tools; • to provide a preliminary assessment of the efficacy of current guidance for LLDs; and • to assess what role, if any, LLDs might play for the future. 2. Local landscape designations: a policy review In 1973 the Countryside Commission published LLD guidance to local authorities in England and Wales (Cobham Resource Consultants, 1993). Thereafter, there was an advisory vacuum with little guidance until the National Policy Planning Guidance notes of the late 1980s (PPG 7 the Countryside and the Rural Economy; Department of the Environment, 1992, 1997). More recently, Planning Policy Statements (PPS) have emerged, where PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) explicitly addressed LLDs (ODPM, 2005 par24–25) clearly signalling that such designations should be used judiciously and not to restrict development. Whilst national guidance became increasingly cautious about LLDs more generally and restricting development particularly, the local authority response was less circumspect following established practice. Research in Wales highlighted significant strategic and operational problems in LLD implementation, exacerbated by planner attitudes that emphasised protective functions (Scott and Bullen, 2004). On the positive side, the recent development of LANDMAP in Wales had undoubtedly improved the rigour for LLD designation which some local authorities were actively pursuing in development plans (CCW, 2001; Scott, 2002). In Scotland there is a different history, politics and legislative background to the development of LLDs. The first piece of Scottish guidance lay with Circular 2/1962 (Scottish Office, 1962) which set out actions that local planning authorities should take where outstanding scenic areas required special consideration under the Planning Acts. All local authorities were to survey their areas to identify. Areas of great landscape value (AGLV) which can be described as vulnerable in the sense that there are or may be pressures for development that may affect them in one way or other.

259

For each area identified, local planning authorities were to prepare a written statement of the general character and quality of the area, definition of the boundaries and policy for control and phasing of development. Significantly, there was no further guidance until National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 14 in 1999 which indicated that planning authorities should avoid the unnecessary proliferation of local designations (Scottish Office, 1998). Nevertheless, it confirmed their continuing relevance alongside new methodological developments of landscape character assessment providing they were clearly defined and justified in development plans. Here there was general concordance with English and Welsh guidance. In 2000 however, Planning Advice Note 60 marked a significant watershed in Scotland’s divergence from other national guidance (Scottish Executive, 2000). This suggested that local designations were important strategic tools for positive planning. Furthermore, recent guidance on LLDs published by Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland (2005) further developed this philosophy stating that “local landscape designations are a well-established and valued approach to protecting and guiding change in areas of particular landscape importance” (1.1). The guidance argues for the revitalisation of LLDs through three interrelated roles: as accolades, through policy development and as management tools. SNH/HS (2005) guidance represents the only national guidance on LLDs in the UK and Europe. It has a menu driven approach based on a range of different criteria; landscape character, landscape qualities, designation and practical criteria including public involvement which allows local authorities to adapt them to their own situation and needs. Significantly, the guidance rejected a national framework as inappropriate. Importantly, it recommended the need for improved strategic management of LLDs through better arrangements for cross authority working and co-operation, the need for systematic reviews of boundaries and improved community involvement and awareness in LLD designation and management and the need for positive management approaches. Such views are widely perceived to involve a change in culture in line with tenets of the recent White Paper on planning in Scotland “Modernising the Planning System” (Scottish Executive, 2005). 3. Methodology The research involved primary and secondary data capture using interviews, policy analyses and collection of spatial data on the extent and landscape characteristics of LLDs. Our approach was centered on all 32 Scottish local planning authorities. Initially a letter was sent to all planning directors in Scotland outlining the aims of the research and requesting interviews with key planning staff. A copy of the interview schedule (Fig. 2) was included so as to allow officers adequate time to prepare and collate the necessary information and documentation prior to the interview. Fifteen authorities agreed to an in-depth interview. In most cases two members of the planning staff (development control and forward planning) were interviewed, but numbers varied from 1 to 3 (Table 1). Semi-structured interviews lasting around

260

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

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

two hours were carried out between January and May 2005 using the format in Fig. 2 with further prompts as necessary. The interviews were taped, transcribed and subjected to thematic content analysis using NVivo analysis; a qualitative software package which allowed coding of transcripts according to the 28 themes emerging from the data (Fig. 3). In addition all interviewed authorities provided spatial data on LLD boundaries (existing and proposed) to enable the mapping of LLD extent across Scotland. Seventeen authorities who declined interviews also provided spatial data to complete the coverage with only West Lothian unable to respond due to lack of staff time (Table 1). Our emphasis focused on the future plans for LLDs in terms of boundaries and extent. This differed from the maps produced in the SNH/HS (2005) study which merely

charted existing development plan boundaries which were out of date. Further spatial data was obtained from Scottish Natural Heritage which included national coverage of Historic Garden and Designed Landscape (HGDL) and maps of the landscape character areas for Scotland. In addition to eliciting planning officer views we also analyzed the recently finalized/proposed development plan (local and structure plan) policies of all local authorities and categorized them according to their policy focus (protection, enhancement, community, strategic need) (Table 2). This allowed comparability with attitudinal data from planner interviews and other Scottish planning guidance; Planning Advice Note 60 (Scottish Executive, 2000) and SNH/HS (2005) guidance. The methodology employed had client-led limitations of time and resources which concentrated effort on securing baseline information on LLD extent and landuse, planner attitudes and extant/emerging development plan policies. This approach is defended due to the lack of basic information on LLD extent and operation in Scotland and the desire to use the framework established by Scott and Bullen (2004) for comparative purposes. The views of elected councilors, developers and members of the public were not elicited in this study and would help to improve triangulation of results and remain priorities for more in depth research as does the use of development control data to assess how far planning practice matches planner attitudes.

Table 1 Details of interview method Council

Method of survey

GIS data available

Interviewees

Aberdeen City Council Aberdeenshire Council Angus Council East Ayrshire Council Edinburgh City Council Fife Council Glasgow City Council Highland Council Inverclyde Council North Ayrshire Council North Lanarkshire Council Renfrewshire Council Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Orkney Islands Council Shetland Islands Council Argyll and Bute Council Clackmannanshire Council Dumfries & Galloway Council Dundee City Council East Dunbartonshire Council East Lothian Council East Renfrewshire Council Falkirk Council Midlothian Council Moray Council Perth & Kinross Council Scottish Borders Council South Ayrshire Council South Lanarkshire Council Stirling Council West Dunbartonshire Council West Lothian Council

Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Face to face interview Video conference Video conference Telephone interview Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire Unable to respond due to lack on time

Full Full N/a Full Full Full Full Partial Full Full Full N/a N/a No Full Full Full Full N/a Full Full N/a Full Full Full Partial Full Full Full Full N/a No

2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

Fig. 3. NVivo codes: key themes emerging from transcripts.

4. Results Fig. 4 shows that LLDs cover significant areas of Scotland (over 29%), with a clear bias towards rural areas (rural 28%; urban 9%) following Scottish Executive’s definitions (Scottish Executive, 2004). When the Landscape Character Assessment (Fig. 5) data are included further biases towards upland/hilly landscapes are identified with agricultural lowlands, valleys and greenspace surrounding urban areas less influential. Interestingly this bias mirrors the pattern for statutory landscape designations across the UK more generally (Shoard, 1982). The planning policy situation facing LLDs is extremely complex and confusing. Local government re-organisation in Scotland in 1996 created 32 unitary authorities but these new authorities inherited a whole series of extant structure (formerly county) and local plans (formerly district councils) which together covered their respective areas. Subsequently, they have embarked on a programme of structure and local plan reviews using these previous local authority districts as the spatial templates. Within a given county there can be up to 12 extant local

261

plans that need to be studied, each over different timeframes, each with possible different terms, policies and approaches towards LLDs. This greatly adds to issues of consistency and transparency into how a particular council operates across its area. Whilst the structure plan process is more or less up to date with complete coverage, the local plan situation is extremely variable. North Lanarkshire for example has extant plans dating back to the 1950s and 1960s which still remain the statutory land use planning documents. Table 3 reveals the plethora of different terms (19) used to describe LLDs with only six of these being used across local authorities. The most prevalent of these are the Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes (29), which is perhaps illuminating in that Historic Scotland champion HGDLs, a role which is not in evidence in the other designations. The AGLV designation is also widespread reflecting its roots in founding legislation (16). For the remainder it appears that authorities have largely devised their own labels to suit their local context and role. It is also apparent that some local authorities have several different LLDs in operation. In some cases this relates to historical issues associated with local government re-organisation reported on above. However, other authorities have consciously tried to use a combination of LLDs in different ways to achieve particular development control and landscape roles. From the interviews four distinctive, but not mutually exclusive, roles could be identified (Table 4). The most prevalent role was for landscape protection where the objective was to ensure that development was not allowed where it significantly reduced existing rural character or visual quality of landscape. The protectionist role was further reinforced by the tendency for “designation stacking,” involving the layering of several designations in the same geographical space (national and/or local) as a deterrent to potential developers. This was commonly found in urban authorities where pressures for residential development were at their greatest. For example, Aberdeen City planners saw LLDs as a response to the perceived vulnerability of Green Belt, whilst in Edinburgh, the focus was on ensuring that each designation was defined to serve a particular purpose in planning and development control. The second role was for landscape enhancement but this was framed within responses that cited mitigation for developments rather than any systematic attempt to enhance particular landscapes. A key tool here was the process of negotiation where local authorities saw their value as a means to stimulate informal discussion with developers regarding modification or relocation of proposals. The examples we uncovered showed the importance of informal negotiations in all local authorities, which by their very nature lay outside the formal planning system. The impact of such negotiations might be highly significant and clearly needs further research. Third, LLDs were seen by a limited number of authorities as a vehicle for community involvement whereby local people were actively involved in the designation process itself. The case of Shetland is particularly interesting and unique where, a planning for real exercise identified 73 areas for protection. However, such explicit public involvement exercises for LLDs were a major exception.

262

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

Table 2 Development plan analyses (Source: Local Authority Local Plans) Authority

Enhancement

Protectionist

Community/development

Strategic need criteria

Aberdeen City Aberdeenshire Angus Argyll and Bute Clackmannanshire Dumfries and Galloway Dundee East Ayrshire East Dumbarton East Lothian East Renfrewshire Edinburgh Falkirk Fife Glasgow Highland Inverclyde Midlothian Moray North Ayrshire North Lanarkshire Orkney Perth and Kinross Renfrewshire Scottish Borders Shetland South Ayrshire South Lanarkshire Stirling West Dunbartonshire West Lothian Western Isles

*

*

*

**

Total * **

*

** *

*

**

**

**

**

**

**

–

–

**

–

–

*

**

–

–

–

–

*

**

** **

–

– **

–

–

** ** * **

*

*

**

*

**

*

*

*

**

**

**

**

*

–

–

**

–

– **

**

**

*

*

*

**

–

–

–

–

*

*

*

**

– – –

– – –

– – –

– – –

20

31

7

22

Policy emphasis. Main policy emphasis.

Table 3 Nomenclature of local landscape designations (Source: Planning Officer Interviews) Term

Number

Historic gardens and designed landscapes Area of great landscape value Regional scenic area Greenspace Green wedges Areas of landscape significance Area of local landscape priority Area of special landscape control Area of panoramic quality Scenic area Local protection areas Sites of local landscape character Sensitive landscape character areas Remote landscapes of value for recreation Sites of special landscape importance Area of landscape quality Sensitive landscape area Areas of special agricultural importance Areas of special landscape control Rural protection area Countryside around towns

29 16 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fourth, LLDs were seen as tools to aid rural development. This was confined to just two authorities where the aim was to redress the more negative assumptions associated with designations by using them as accolades to secure funds for rural tourism initiatives and projects thereby maximising economic and social benefits. These roles were evident in the policy analyses from forthcoming development (structure and local) plans (Table 2). However, it is evident that many authorities have adopted a wider set of criteria for LLD policy that takes into account need based assessments, though the protectionist outlook is still dominant. Table 4 illustrates the policy wording and outlook across the local authorities. It would appear that the SNHHS (2005) guidance has yet to have any significant effect on policy at the local level. Furthermore, these different roles are particularly interesting when compared with contemporary planning policies for the wider countryside which increasingly use criteria to ensure appropriate types of development, as well as endorsing the national guidance which commands restraint in the open countryside. Inverclyde’s policy (DS9) (Inverclyde Council, 2006) is typical and on the face of it, extremely protective in outlook.

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

Fig. 4. Map of LLDs across Scotland.

263

264

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

Fig. 5. Map of landscape character areas within local landscape designations.

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

265

Table 4 Roles of local landscape designations (Source: Planning Officer Interviews and Local Authority Local Plans) Outlook

Number

Example of policy wording

Local authorities

Landscape protection (including designation stacking)

15

In the area of great landscape value as shown on the Proposals Map, permission will not be granted for development which would materially detract from the intrinsic scenic interest and qualities of the landscape Within an AGLV, development which is supported under other policies in this local plan must maintain or enhance the character of the landscape through the highest standards of design and finish Where an area has been identified (community led through planning for real exercises) on the Map as a Local Protection Area, only applications for the development of facilities, which benefit the community as a whole, will be considered In areas of low sensitivity we will assess developments for their effects on any relevant interests. We will allow them if we believe that they will not have an unreasonable effect, particularly where it can be shown that it will support communities in fragile areas who are having difficulties in keeping their population and services

Edinburgh City Council (2005) (policy GE5)

Landscape enhancement (including negotiation)

9

Community involvement

3

Rural development

2

Development within the countryside will be permitted only where it can be supported with reference to the following criteria: (a) it is required for the purpose of agriculture and forestry; (b) it is a recreation, leisure or tourism proposal which is appropriate for the countryside and contributes to the social and economic development of the area; (c) there is a specific locational requirement for the use and it cannot be accommodated on an alternative site; (d) it entails appropriate re-use of traditional and/or vacant buildings which it would be desirable to retain for their historic or architectural character; or (e) it forms part of an establishment or institution standing in extensive grounds; and (f) it does not adversely impact on the landscape character; (g) it does not adversely impact on the natural heritage resource; (h) there is a need for additional land for development purposes, provided it takes account of the requirements of the Structure Plan and; (i) it complies with other relevant Local Plan policies. Indeed, some authorities such as Midlothian Council (Shawfair) (Midlothian Council, 2003) in their local plan policy (RP7) have abandoned LLDs in favour of a landscape character route. Development will not be permitted where it may adversely affect the quality of the local landscape. Where development is acceptable it shall respect the local landscape character and contribute towards its maintenance and enhancement. New developments shall incorporate proposals to: A. Maintain the local diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character including natural and built heritage features of landscape value such as woodland, hedges, ponds, stone walls and historical sites; and B. Enhance landscape characteristics where they have been weakened and need improvement. Table 5 reveals that most of the first tranche of LLDs designated during the 1960s have no documented evidence as

Fife Council (2003) local plan (policy COU 4)

Shetland Council’s (2006) local plan (policy NE11)

Highland Council (2005) (Policy 2.1 of the Highland’s Council Wester Ross Local Plan, Deposit draft with modifications)

to how they were designated. Many planning officers merely accepted these “inherited” designations which were carried forward into development plans, without any review or modification on the basis that they “seemed to be working” and/or “did not cause any public opposition.” Undoubtedly, local government re-organisations in 1973 and 1996 had led to loss of records and key staff, but the presumptions of continued value and success were concerning. Many local authorities still use extant planning policies and designations inherited from as far back as the 1950s and 1960s without adequate resources to undertake any systematic review, apart from basic internal assessments as part of the development plan process. However, today there is increasing variety in the approaches being adopted and the appearance of external consultants indicates that authorities are trying out their own approaches and methodologies for LLDs, although this is on an ad hoc basis (Table 5). Furthermore, the national coverage of landscape character assessment by Scottish Natural Heritage has provided a baseline on which to append more sophisticated landscape assessments which could support or replace LLDs (Fig. 5). Table 5 also reveals six authorities who no longer have LLDs and three further authorities who have elected to discontinue LLDs in the future. Instead, assessments of landscape characTable 5 Approaches to LLD designation (Source: Planning Officer Interviews) Approach

Original

Present/proposed

Unknown Internal method External consultants Landscape character assessment Use previous boundaries as defaults for new plans No LLDs

9 5 0 0 –

2 5 6 8 5

–

9

266

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

Table 6 Strengths and weaknesses of LLDs (Source: Planning Officer Interviews) Strengths

N

Percentage

Extra defence vs. development Flexible local tool Improve decision making Design tool Clarity Support national policy Identify/protect ‘best’ landscapes Improve understanding/awareness Promote tourism No strengths

21 8 7 2 4 1 8 5 1 6

33 13 11 3 6 2 13 8 2 9

Total references to ‘strengths’

63

100

ter/capacity will be the principal tool in landscape management with only statutory national landscape designations in operation. In this context studies of landscape and settlement capacity have become Supplementary Planning Guidance to guide future development (Fife County Council, 2004). Many planners saw such tools as giving them greater confidence to defend their policies particularly with respect to the current development pressures in areas of high landscape value. Planners’ evaluations of LLDs are highlighted in Table 6. Significantly, no clear consensus emerged across authorities. The strengths revolve primarily around LLD flexibility and protection functions. It was evident that different areas faced different pressures and these designations could be adapted to suit local circumstances without government intervention and control. Indeed, there were specific comments made about the limitations of existing statutory designations in terms of their focus and extent that LLDs could address. In Orkney the AGLVs and the Areas of Local Landscape Character were reported as being effective “because of the way that they tended to build development around them, in them, rather than object”. In Shetland, they “are locally agreed and not centrally imposed”, while in Dumfries and Galloway, “they play an important role in control of development in areas of local distinctiveness that would not meet the definition of a statutory designation.” In urban areas too they could play a reinforcing role that helped give sense of identity and place (Aberdeen City). It was also clear that LLDs by definition flagged up an area for more protection than the wider countryside and a line on map was a powerful tool to guide decision makers and potential developers. The weaknesses focussed on their failure to protect landscapes in light of pressures for housing and economic development, the lack of strategic considerations in their designation and operation and overall lack of public and professional understanding of their role and remit (Table 6). Selected interview extracts help illuminate these key themes. In North Lanarkshire, for example, there was concern at “the way piecemeal housing development had eroded the very landscape qualities that had led to its designation. In Aberdeenshire there was concern at the way boundary selection had led to some nonsensical LLDs covering built development and housing estates. On more strategic matters such as cross boundary issues there

Weakness

N

Percentage

Weak designation process Inconsistencies between authorities Devalue wider landscape Too broad and widespread Countryside policy is sufficient Ineffective tools Not understood, not known Lack of resources, difficult to manage

10 6 4 7 2 19 8 4

17 10 7 12 3 31 13 7

Total references to ‘weaknesses’

60

100

were no structures in place to discuss LLD boundaries; it was only for regional parks and green belts that there were any strategic partnerships in operation. We can even report that some planners were unaware of the designations that were LLDs. Concern was expressed in East Ayrshire that if LLDs become too ubiquitous the designation ultimately becomes irrelevant. Whereas Inverclyde were concerned at the indirect effect of LLDs sending a green light to areas which were not designated. Crucially in none of these areas were any management plans or strategies in evidence. 5. Discussion This research has to be viewed in the context of a significant research gap both in UK and elsewhere of LLDs extent, form, function and performance. This becomes an urgent priority in terms of their geographical coverage (29% Scotland). As Hamin (2002) shows such landscapes form key components of IUCN Category V but their spatial variability, focus and differing nomenclature impose real difficulties in making comparative assessments. Our own assessment is that the UK response of local designations is unique in landscape governance as elsewhere more regional cross boundary approaches involving collaborative management and consequential management plans is now the norm (Selman, 2004). This in part reflects the landscape management philosophy of the European Landscape Convention with the emphasis on management rather than control. The LLD response appears to have several handicaps here. We presented evidence of a culture rooted in control with limited evidence of collaborative management, dedicated management plans or wider strategic priorities and public involvement. All this points to serious deficiencies in promoting these designations as effective landscape tools (Carey et al., 2000). However, current national planning policy guidance for LLDs, as evidenced through PAN 60 and SNH/HS (2005), sets out a new vision for positive and strategic landscape planning (Scottish Executive, 2000). As such this reflects the spirit of the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000). However, the research findings reported here reveal a clear lag between such national aspirations and local authority responses in terms of both attitudes and policy which are grounded in more negative and restrictive cultures.

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

Unpacking these differences is crucial in helping to explain national–local interrelationships and why the local view is out of step with much of the general thrust of rural policy. The interviews revealed that the culture of protectionism extended beyond a simple consideration of LLDs alone, reflecting a more generic perception that the landscape agenda was afforded low priority when compared with other economic, social and environmental imperatives. Consequentially, planners viewed important landscapes as being under constant threat from housing, wind farms and other developments with current landscape policy and associated resources too weak to overcome economic and social arguments. This situation mirrors the views of planners in Wales and England notwithstanding the significant methodological progress that has been made with LANDMAP (Wales) and Countryside Quality Counts (England) as frameworks for landscape assessment and evaluation (Nottingham University Consultants, 2004). Moreover, recent papers in Landscape and Urban Planning have demonstrated how landscape arguments can be more readily incorporated into policy decisions (Gimblett et al., 2001; Sheppard, 2001) but at present this is rarely in evidence in planning committees and their subsequent decisions. This situation also compares unfavourably with the progress in nature conservation policy in Scotland which benefits from the Nature Conservation Act statutory biodiversity duty and the championing of nature conservation activities by NGOs. Nevertheless, there are some more encouraging signs with the recent signing of the European Landscape Convention by the UK Government and the Scottish Executive’s decision to review National Scenic Area policy (Scottish Executive, 2006). The evidence was mixed with regard to LLD performance; some evidence supported LLDs providing an additional and flexible layer to protect threatened landscapes, but equally there was evidence presented that it failed in this purpose. The power and simplicity of a line on a map with its associated policy constraint clearly has intuitive appeal in sending a deterrent message to potential developers and simplifying landscape arguments and decision making for planning committees. However, it was vulnerable to challenge at public inquiry over matters relating to boundary and LLD definition which for the most part was historical and undocumented. Furthermore, the political dimension had a crucial bearing on decisions affecting landscape matters. Elected officials had to balance competing priorities when any development was proposed, and it was clear that economic and social priorities could easily overwhelm objections on landscape grounds alone. For example, in the Western Isles it was accepted that economic development priorities shaped the pragmatic approach that had to be taken towards landscape matters which were more about mitigation and enhancement rather than refusal in any case. This situation was mirrored in the OECD report on Poland (OECD, 2004) which found the principal problem lay more with the institutional responses to landscape than with the designations themselves. The issue of institutional and political will to protect and enhance landscapes is key at whatever scale the protected landscape exists (Carey et al., 2000; Selman, 2004; La Freniere, 1997) Other studies in Wales have also highlighted this political dimension but there is a wider

267

question of whether it is the designation per se that has any material effect on the types of decision taken or the composition or attitudes of a particular planning committee making a decision (Scott, 2001). All this suggests that new national guidance needs adequate resourcing to support the more positive and strategic roles desired as opposed to the reactive and protective attitudes we encountered. It is here that the literature and experiences from other countries in protected area management is informative and illuminating. The Landcare programme in Australia is an exemplar of collaborative and integrative approaches to local landscape management where a “bottom up” approach enables management initiatives (Sobels et al., 2001). Selman (2004) also reports on the experiences in Hungary where locally rooted landscape protection collaborations were seen as the key to success in management. This “bottom up” approach to the management and protection of landscape is critical and seemingly lacking with the experience reported in Scotland. In only three authorities was there any explicit community or stakeholder involvement in the designation process and its policy formation and in only one was there any management plan for the area. Such approaches would give a sense of identity and purpose that is currently missing and switch its function from a reactive tool of planning policy. Significantly where the more positive management approaches were in evidence all experienced problems with implementation due to lack of financial resources, reinforcing the notion of paper designations (Carey et al., 2000). The top-down, reactive approach identified in this research is clearly at odds with the European Landscape Convention and re-conceptualising LLDs as community-led tools for economic and social development does, on the face of it, represent the current thrust of rural policy throughout Europe (Midgley and Adams, 2006). This clearly requires a significant culture change from the planners and stakeholders in the UK concomitant with a raised profile for landscape matters. Breaking into this cycle and creating a “virtuous circle” as promulgated by Powell et al. (2002) is handicapped by their lack of pro-active management identity, non-statutory status and public appreciation. Crucially the flexibility and adaptability of LLDs is an important consideration and should be supported to allow local conditions to dictate agreed management responses akin to Local Biodiversity Action plans. At a strategic level there is clear confusion in policy and attitude how LLDs fit within the wider designation hierarchy including the wider, undesignated countryside. Indeed, some policies treat LLDs in the same policy as other statutory designations such as National Scenic Areas which only adds to their confusion. There clearly is a need for improved integration of statutory and non-statutory planning, an objective according with Selman’s (2002) approach for multifunctional landscape plans and Warren et al. (2003) integrated tourism landscapes in New Zealand. 6. Conclusion This exploratory research has covered new ground in raising awareness of the deficiency in understanding and effectiveness

268

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269

of LLDs as landscape management tools in Scotland. In so doing it sets a challenge to re-invent the designation in more positive and community-led terms with indicators to measure their performance and an improved understanding of their form and function through the development of local management strategies and improved collaboration with stakeholders. Clearly such activities need a champion and there is a need for Scottish Natural Heritage to oversee this. Within Scotland this research has illuminated a whole set of strategic and operational issues that impact on LLD performance and credibility. In particular there is a lack of integration between an aspirational national strategy towards LLDs and, local authority policy responses and planner attitudes. Whilst national rhetoric encourages LLDs as accolades, the local authority response is contextualised by fears of landscapes seemingly under threat of development. This divergence reflects the perceived lack of credibility of landscape arguments in development control procedures and highlights the danger of producing guidance for LLDs in isolation from the remaining rural/urban landscapes and publics in which they sit. The Scottish Executive has now recognised the need for improved landscape policies in line with the European Landscape Convention which emphasises integration and holism and inclusion (Scottish Executive, 2006). There are a series of further research questions that should inform future policy development. Key areas include: improving the level and degree of public involvement in the management of LLDs; changing the culture of the designation from protection towards more sustainable and inclusive forms of management response and improving LLD understanding by developers and councillors. It also begs a key question as to whether the designation ideal has now outlived its usefulness and perhaps might be better explored through local landscape partnerships which by definition would be more inclusive and strategic. Moreover as the governance of landscapes becomes more complicated and as more regulation impacts upon states and territories such an approach has much to commend it. Nevertheless, as Bishop et al. (1995) indicate these tools are possibly important as flexible and rapid response mechanisms to areas that lie outside the remit of the statutory planning system and given the recent emphasis upon a planning system fit for purpose their role might serve a useful purpose in achieving wider spatial planning objectives. LLDs are but one potential tool for planners and there is considerable merit in trying to develop them in a more strategic and empirical manner. The principal challenge is to move away from the current climate of presumption of value to define new roles with clarity and transparency in partnership with local communities thereby ensuring meaning and purpose. Scotland has defined a unique role for LLDs when compared with the rest of the UK and the evidence suggests that there is a now a foundation to build future success upon. References Agger, P.W., 2001. New types of nature and environmental management for a, in particular based on the experience of Danish environmental councils. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of the Pan-European

Ecological Network, The Partnership of Local and Regional Authorities in the Conservation of Biological and Landscape Diversity, Rochefort, Belgium, September 18–19, 2000, pp. 35–40. Bishop, K., Phillips, A., Warren, L., 1995. Protected for ever: factors shaping the future of protected areas policy. Land Use Policy 12 (4), 291–305. Carey, C., Dudley, N., Stolton, S., 2000. Squandering Paradise The Importance and Vulnerability of the World’s Protected Areas. World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Gland, http://assets.panda.org/downloads/ squandering paradise.pdf; accessed November 1, 2006. Cobham Resource Consultants, 1993. Review of Special Landscape Areas in Kent (Report for Kent County Council). Cobham Resource Consultants, Oxford. Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention, http://conventions. coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm; Article 1: Brussels EU. Countryside Agency/Rural Development Commission, 1998. Rural Development and Land Use Planning Policies (Research Notes RDR 38/S). Countryside Agency, Salisbury. Countryside Council for Wales, 2001. The LANDMAP Information System. CCW, Bangor. Department of the Environment, 1992. The Countryside and Rural Economy (Planning Policy Guidance Note 7). HMSO, London. Department of the Environment, 1997. The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (Planning Policy Guidance Note 7). HMSO, London. Edinburgh City Council, 2005. South East Edinburgh Local Plan 2005, http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/environment/planning buildings i i / planning/planning policies/local plans/CEC south east edinburgh local plan, accessed February 10, 2006. La Freniere, G.F., 1997. Greenline parks in France: Les Parcs Naturels Regionaux. Agric. Hum. 14, 337–352. Fall, J.J., 2003. Planning protected areas across boundaries: new paradigms and old ghosts. J. Sustain. Forestry 17(1/2), 81–102. Reprinted in: 2003, Transboundary Protected Areas: The Viability of Regional Conservation Strategies. The Haworth Press, New York. Fife Council, 2003. Cupar and Howe of Fife Local Plan 2003, http://www.fife. gov.uk/atoz/index.cfm?fuseaction=service.display&objectid=57050312AFB2-44BB-92CCBEF106A9ABA9, accessed February 10, 2006. Fife County Council, 2004. Landscape Capacity Assessment Cupar, Report to Fife Council. Gimblett, R., Daniel, T., Cherry, S., Meitner, M.J., 2001. The simulation and visualization of complex human–environment interactions. Landscape Urban Plan. 54 (1–4), 63–79. Hamin, E.M., 2002. Western European approaches to landscape protection: a review of literature. J. Plan. Lit. 16 (3), 339–358. Highland Council, 2005. Wester Ross Replacement Local Plan 2005, http://cgi.www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/devplans/wross/wr online/wr online.htm. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2000. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. EUROPARC, Grafenau. Inverclyde Council, 2006. Inverclyde Local Plan, http://www.inverclyde.gov. uk/Economic Development/index.php?module=article&view=89&MMN position=151:61, accessed February 10, 2006. Jensen, L.H., 2006. Changing conceptualization of landscape in English landscape assessment methods (Chapter 12), http://library. wur.nl/frontis/landscape research/12 jensen.pdf, accessed March 1, 2006. Midgley, J., Adams, J., 2006. Towards a new rural agenda. In: Midgley, J. (Ed.), A New Rural Agenda. Institute for Public Policy Research, London, pp. 7–29. Midlothian Council, 2003. Shawfair Local Plan 2003, http://www.midlothian. gov.uk/strategic/plans/local/adoptedshawfair.htm. Nottingham University Consultants, 2004. Haines-Young et al. (2004) Countryside Quality Counts: Tracking Change in the English Countryside: Final Report, http://www.countryside-quality-counts.org.uk/docs/CQC Final Report Vol1.pdf, accessed June 7, 2004. OECD, 2004. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews Poland: Nature and Biodiversity. Source OECD Environment & Sustainable Development, vol. 2003, no. 8, March 2004, pp. 126–151 (26).

A. Scott, P. Shannon / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 257–269 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003. The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (PPG 7 [1997], revised), http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ppg/ppg7/04.htm. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005. Planning Policy Statement 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. ODPM, London. Phillips, A., 1999. A whole landscape approach for a holistic century. In: Policies and Priorities for Ireland’s Landscape Conference Papers, Tullamore, Co. Offaly, April 1999, http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/ landscape/index.htm. Phillips, A., Clarke, R., 2004. Our landscape from a wider perspective. In: Bishop, K., Phillips, A. (Eds.), Countryside Planning: New Approaches to Management and Conservation. Earthscan, London, pp. 49–67. Powell, J., Selman, P., Wragg, A., 2002. Protected areas: reinforcing the virtuous circle. Plann. Pract. Res. 17 (3), 279–295. Rodrigues, A.S.L., Andelman, S.J., Bakarr, M.I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.M., Cowling, R.M., Fishpool, L.D.C., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gaston, K.J., Hoffmann, M., Long, J.S., Marquet, P.A., Pilgrim, J.D., Pressey, R.L., Schipper, J., Sechrest, W., Stuart, S.N., Underhill, L.G., Waller, R.W., Watts, M.E.J., Yan, X., 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428, 640–643. Scott, A.J., 2001. Special landscape areas: their operation and effectiveness in Ceredigion Wales. Town Plan. Rev. 72, 469–480. Scott, A.J., 2002. Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience. Landscape Res. 27, 271–295. Scott, A.J., 2003. Public perception of landscape in Wales; implications for the town and country planning system. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 5 (2), 123–144. Scott, A.J., Bullen, A., 2004. Special landscape areas: landscape conservation or confusion in the town and country planning system. Town Plan. Rev. 75 (2), 205–230. Scottish Office, 1962. 2/1962 Development Plans: Areas of Great Landscape Value and Tourist Development Proposals. The Scottish Office, Edinburgh. Scottish Office, 1998. National Planning Policy Guidelines 14: Natural Heritage. The Scottish Office, Edinburgh.

269

Scottish Executive, 2000. Planning for Natural Heritage: Planning Advice Note 60 PAN 60. The Scottish Office, Edinburgh. Scottish Executive, 2004. Urban/Rural Definitions. The Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. Scottish Executive, 2005. Modernising the Planning System. The Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. Scottish Executive, 2006. Enhancing our Care of Scotland’s Landscapes, Consultation on National Scenic Areas, http://www.scotland.gov. uk/Publications/2006/01/27145442/0, accessed April 1, 2006. Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland, 2005. Guidance on Local Landscape Designations, Final Report. Scottish Natural Heritage, Battleby. Selman, P., 2002. Multi-function landscape plans: a missing link in sustainability planning? Plan. Pract. Res. 7 (3), 283–294. Selman, P., 2004. Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 47 (3), 365–392. Sheppard, S.R.J., 2001. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualisation. Landscape Urban Plan. 54, 183–199. Shetland Council, 2006. Shetland local plan, http://www.shetland.gov.uk/ developmentplans/shetlandlocalplan.asp, accessed February 10, 2006. Shoard, M., 1982. The lure of the moors. In: Gold, J.R., Burgess, J. (Eds.), Valued Environments. George Allen and Unwin, London, pp. 55–73. Sobels, J., Curtis, A., Lockie, S., 2001. The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. J. Rural Stud. 17 (3), 265–276. Tickle, A., Clark, R., 2000. Nature and landscape conservation in transition in central and south eastern Europe. Eur. Environ. 10, 211–219. Warren, J., Pihema, W., Taylor, N., Gough, J., Blaschke, P., Baily, M., 2003. Recognising and planning for managing limits to tourism development in natural areas. In: Paper Presented at Taking Tourism to the Limits, Waikato University, December. Wragg, A., 2000. Towards sustainable landscape planning: experiences from the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Landscape Res. 25 (2), 183–200.