Planning and development: standing advice and guidance documents

https://www.nature.scot/professional-advice/planning-and-development/planning-and-development-advice/planning-and-development-standing-advice-and-guidance-documents

Below are links to all of our standing advice and guidance documents, as well as to some key guidance documents published by other organisations. These can help both developers and planners to deliver the right development in the right place, by minimising impacts on nature and securing the benefits that nature can provide.

To support our written guidance we also run a programme of webinars. Recordings of the webinars can be viewed here.

Air Pollution

Considering air pollution impacts in development management casework

Aquaculture

Birds

General

Standing Advice for Planning Consultations - Birds

Survey methods

Capercaillie survey methods

Bird breeding season dates in Scotland

Disturbance distances in selected Scottish bird species

Assessing connectivity with Special Protection Areas

Impact assessment

Natural Heritage Zone bird population estimates

Environmental Statements and annexes of environmentally sensitive bird information

Mitigation measures

Dealing with construction and birds

Implications of additional protection for hen harrier, red kite and golden eagle under Schedules A1 & 1A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981)

The use of helicopters and aircraft in relation to disturbance risks to Schedule 1 & 1A raptors and wider Schedule 1 species

Construction

Constructed tracks in the Scottish Uplands

Key natural heritage considerations in track construction – a quick-guide

Car-parks in the countryside - a practical guide to planning, design and construction

Development Planning

Purpose

The following note sets out NatureScot’s approach to our duty to cooperate with planning authorities in preparing the Proposed Plan.

The Local Development Plan (LDP) Guidance states (paragraph 152) that a sites appraisal should be undertaken so that all sites are assessed using the site appraisal methodology agreed in the Evidence Report. This should include: -

sites allocated in an existing Local Development Plan (LDP).
sites proposed through any call for ideas; and
any other sites the planning authority considers may have potential implications on the natural environment.

We also recommend that the site assessment approach closely aligns with the SEA and the HRA.

Key Agency Proforma

The SEA Consultation Authorities have updated the Local Development Plan Site Assessment and SEA Checklist to align with National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). It has been developed to help inform approaches to site assessment and to avoid duplication of effort, and planning authorities are welcome to adapt and modify the proforma to suit their needs.

Process for consulting us

The site assessment methodology put forward by the planning authority (and as agreed in their Evidence Report) should be utilised to sift through the sites (both existing and proposed) to identify implications for the natural environment. This initial assessment should be carried out by the planning authority with input from their biodiversity /natural heritage specialists. The implications of proposals on both the protected and undesignated natural environment should be taken into consideration.

To ensure that our resources are used where they are most valuable to you, we will review relevant sifted sites as detailed further below. We expect the planning authority to carry out the initial assessment of existing and proposed sites before sending the sifted sites to us for our input. We are unlikely to provide repeated assessments of potential sites following our initial advice, unless there has been some change to the potential allocation(s). In general, any further comments will be made as representations via the Proposed Plan consultation.

We will engage with site review requests that: -

Are sent to us after the planning authority have made their own assessments and sifted out non-viable sites.
Are grouped in a way that avoids repeated individual requests, i.e. in one batch.
Are supplied with a GIS shapefile.
Are accompanied by indicative or draft SEA, HRA, and Site assessment findings.
Include a summary of the reason for requesting our input.

The focus of our review will be on sites where there are opportunities or issues for the natural heritage. Our aim is to provide advice early in the planning process, but this does not mean that we will comment on all the sites sent to us, even following initial sifting by the planning authority.

Sites that we are unlikely to want to comment on and can be sifted out include: -

Site history - if it is already allocated in the current LDP and there are no changes, or if it has planning permission.
Current use - if it is redevelopment. (Unless it is a sizeable site and / or has connectivity to a protected area, then we may comment.)
Location – if it is a site within a settlement. (Unless there may be connectivity to a protected area, then we may comment.)
Size - very small sites (below 1ha as a guide). (Unless there is connectivity to a protected area, then we may comment.)

Over and above the previous list, we will likely want to comment on the following: -

Any issue related to specific information provided by NatureScot as part of our NatureScot Evidence Report submission.
Any site brought forward from the current LDP that was previously screened out of HRA but would now be screened in because of the People Over Wind CJEU judgment.
Site allocations where the Delivery Programme identifies NatureScot as a delivery partner.

For sites where there are likely to be significant environmental effects and we consider that specific mitigation would be required, we will indicate whether: -

we are content with the allocation in principle, subject to mitigation measures (e.g. specific requirements to be included in development briefs/ delivery programme, or alteration of the allocation boundary),

we recommend that the allocation should be removed or altered, because adequate mitigation is not possible.

Our SEA / HRA comments will focus on the sufficiency of the assessments as well as supporting findings where we agree. This applies to sites that have been through the sifting process and forwarded to us for comment.

We request a minimum consultation period of 6 weeks for site review. We may need more time than this depending on the number and complexity of the sites involved. If more time is needed, we will contact the planning authority to agree a suitable deadline.