by Graham Sharp
Following the Government’s announcement that a new Scottish Use Classes Order will operate from March 27 1989, predictions have been made that this year will see a major surge in business park development in Scotland. However, battle lines have already been drawn in the Glasgow conurbation, where Strathclyde Regional Council are set to resist the deregulatory effects of Scotland’s new business class.
In August 1988 the Scottish Office issued a consultation paper on its proposals to amend the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1973. The purpose of this piece of legislation, which can be abbreviated to UCO, is to exempt from planning control changes of use between particular categories of development in any one class. Certain limited changes of use between particular classes are also accepted. The Scottish Office’s move follows the introduction of a new UCO in England and Wales in 1987.
Certain of the proposals contained in the consultation paper were more wide ranging than those introduced south of the border. In particular, the Scottish Office proposed removing the traditional division between High Street offices (banks, building societies and the like) and shops, by combining both uses within a single class. This proposal attracted widespread criticism and was publicly abandoned by the Scottish Office.
However, the proposed new business class has been enshrined in the new order. This measure is of particular significance to the Scottish property community in that it will affect present planning constraints on the location of office developments. This new grouping of uses is listed as Class 4 in the order and is identical to the B1 Class already enacted in England and Wales.
The new business class embraces a range of uses including light industry, hi-tech and offices (excluding those which principally provide services to visiting members of the public), and its effect is to remove the need to apply for planning consent for any change of use between these categories of development. In addition, change of use from general industrial (Class 5) to the new business use is now permitted by an amendment to the General Development Order.
What then of the implications of the new business class for development plans and development control? The Scottish Office have published a circular (No 6/1989) which explains the provisions and consequences of the new order and provides some guidance on these issues. The circular states that the basic aim of the new business class is to allow flexibility among industrial, office and research and development uses and that “development plans will therefore require to be altered to reflect this flexibility”. It is further stated that “there is a presumption against the use of conditions or section 50 agreements which are designed to limit future changes of use which would otherwise be allowed by virtue of the Use Classes Order or the amendment to the General Development Order”, and that this presumption applies “with particular force to the new business class”.
Similar guidance was given to planning authorities in England and Wales when a new business class was introduced there in 1987. An analysis of the response of planning authorities in the South East of England to the B1 business class has been undertaken by Drivers Jonas. This analysis shows that the policy response of these authorities is split into three groups. Authorities including Berkshire County Council and the City of London Corporation have revised their policies to accord with class B1. The second group comprises authorities who have not revised their policies in any way and are apparently adopting a “wait and see” approach — the London Boroughs of Croydon, Camden and Islington are within this group. Finally, there are authorities who have revised their policies in an attempt to mitigate the effects of class B1. For example, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ draft alterations to its local plan apply a plot ratio to B1 development whereby any building exceeding 2:1 (ie office developments) must be within 400m of a defined transport interchange and offer planning advantages.
Policy responses of this nature would appear to be out of step with the spirit of the B1 class, but it is very rare for central government to intervene directly in the local planning process. The best guide to the Government’s attitude to the B1 issue is from appeal decisions. These clearly show that where councils use conditions to restrict the flexibility of class B1 without a good planning justification, their decision will be overturned on appeal. However, restriction may be acceptable if this is warranted by particular site circumstances, perhaps because of insufficient parking capacity for office use, or insufficient capacity on the access road. Otherwise, it is clear from an analysis of recent appeal decisions that the use of restrictive conditions will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. So far, such circumstances appear to be limited to instances where shortages of industrial accommodation in particular areas could be seriously exacerbated by unfettered office development on sites granted B1 consents.
The process of amending Scotland’s UCO has coincided with the review of two development plans, namely the Strathclyde Structure Plan and the North-West Edinburgh Local Plan, which affect areas where the greatest pressure for business space development is envisaged. Both of these plans contain references to the introduction of a business class in Scotland, but the approach of the planning authorities involved — Strathclyde Regional Council and Edinburgh District Council — differs greatly.
The deposited North-West Edinburgh Local Plan recognises that in some business sectors, notably the high-technology industries, “it is becoming increasingly difficult, and undesirable, for planning purposes to distinguish between manufacturing and office functions”. The plan defines 75 hectares of land at South Gyle, on the western outskirts of Edinburgh, for “special business development”. It is accepted that this will involve the provision of buildings which will be flexible, perhaps indeterminate in use, involving the combination in single premises of research and development, production, storage and office functions. It is stated that, for planning purposes, development may fall into the categories of office, light industry or general industry.
Clearly, Edinburgh District Council has recognised a need for business class-type space and has taken a positive step in anticipation of the new UCO to accommodate this need, and thereby promote employment opportunities.
The approach adopted by Strathclyde Regional Council to the accommodation of business use is markedly different. Following a period of public consultation the 1988 update of the Strathclyde Structure Plan was approved by the Regional Council for submission to the Secretary of State on February 22 1989. It was common knowledge in Scottish planning circles by this date that an equivalent of the B1 class would be introduced in Scotland, and the update addresses itself to this issue.
Prior to the update, Strathclyde’s Structure Plan contained a strong presumption against office developments over 2,000m2 gross outside Glasgow’s central area. The update states that, despite the provisions of the proposed new business class, there is no need to revise this policy stance. Strathclyde’s argument is that the use class proposals were originally conceived to facilitate the integration of high-technology industry, which has relatively high ratio office requirements, within existing industrial areas. The update insists that existing industrial policies already cater for such development, and that they also encourage the provision of ancillary office services which would meet the requirements of industrial estate occupiers. It is concluded that there is therefore no presumption against business parks outside the central area on existing industrial land.
However, Strathclyde’s definition of a “business park” would appear to be considerably narrower than the market’s understanding of this term. The structure plan glossary of terms defines those uses which are considered to be appropriate within industrial areas. The definition includes light industry (including hi-tech industry), general industry, service and distribution warehousing and ancillary service provision (ie small scale retail and office developments to provide services to the industrial base).
Clearly, this definition is at odds both with the market’s definition of business parks and with the provisions of the new business class, by virtue of the restriction placed on the amount of office development allowed in industrial areas. In the market’s experience, business parks generally involve medium- to large-scale quality office space. Business park office uses are often not linked to an industrial use, and there is no reason why such linkage should necessarily exist. Circular 6/1989 also stresses this last point in stating that all of the uses within the new business class are now interchangeable and planning permission should not normally be required to switch from one to another. It is further stated that “planning policies and development control decisions should not attempt to restrict the freedoms provided by the Use Classes Order and the General Development Order”, and that “while it may, very exceptionally, be appropriate for a planning authority in determining a particular application to impose a condition restricting use to which land or buildings may subsequently be put, structure and local plans should not include in policies restrictions which would be inconsistent with the Use Classes Order”. In short, the emphasis is on flexibility of use, which Strathclyde’s policies fail to recognise.
Strathclyde’s policy stand over the new business class would therefore appear to require amendment. Surprisingly, the Scottish Development Department made no comment on the office chapter of the update’s consultative draft which endorsed the existing restrictive policies. This is unlikely to be the end of the matter, however, since the Secretary of State now has the opportunity formally to modify the update.
Strathclyde’s main plank of defence for its policy stance is that the unrestricted application of the new business class would have an adverse effect on Glasgow’s central area. The regional council believes that office demand in Glasgow is cyclical, and that there is a possibility of a supply surplus in the near future. In such circumstances the council fears that a lack of control over office development beyond the central area would somehow generate decentralisation of existing city-centre occupiers. Arguments that business-park users have different requirements from most traditional city-centre office users, and that the central area will continue to possess overwhelming locational advantages for the majority of commercial firms, are not addressed by the update.
Such arguments notwithstanding, Strathclyde’s policy direction on business space seems almost certain to be modified by the Secretary of State. Even if it is assumed that this will occur, however, the council could still exert considerable influence over the determination of business space applications. Recent examples of this type of action include the imposition of a condition on an application for business space development at the Hillington Industrial Estate, near Paisley. This condition, which was imposed at the instigation of the regional council, states that office uses must be ancillary to an industrial use on the estate. Similarly, Strathclyde has recommended that Tilbury Developments’ proposals for the mixed-use redevelopment of the former Talbot Car Plant at Linwood be subject to a condition restricting the office content in the business park part of the scheme to 2,000m2 gross.
Should Strathclyde persist in attempting to restrict the flexibility of the new business class in this way then it is inevitable that it will have to defend its actions at appeal. As far as this writer is aware, the supply/demand and protection of the city-centre argument advanced by the regional council has not as yet been tested on appeal in England and Wales. This is primarily because this issue does not arise in the overheated economy of the South East, where most business space applications have been lodged. It will therefore be very interesting to see how the Secretary of State will deal with this issue. Representations have been made to Strathclyde that there is a limited, but important, element of demand for off-centre business park accommodation in the Glasgow conurbation, which could co-exist comfortably with the city-centre office market, but is not adequately catered for by the structure plan. The finalised version of the structure plan update dashed any hopes of a change of heart by the regional council.
It is likely that the winners of this debate will ultimately be decided on appeal. Until then, the only real winners are the developers of Edinburgh’s South Gyle Business Park, who are well placed to divert potential business space users away from Strathclyde. In these circumstances, one is reminded of how positive and pro-active planning decisions achieve the beneficial results which inflexible and reactive planning fails to realise.
