Developers face increased scrutiny of the transport implications of developments under proposed measures designed to reduce reliance on cars and promote alternative modes of transport. Pressure on developers to provide more detailed planning applications could mean increased costs.

The Government's long-awaited White Paper, Travel Choices for Scotland, has been published amid growing fears about the health hazards of pollution and the problems associated with increased congestion on roads, writes Colin Innes.

The Scottish Office recently published a draft Planning Policy Guidance on Transport and Planning supporting the policy objectives of the White Paper. Both documents have significant implications for developments whether for retail, office, industrial, business or leisure use, and both follow previous guidance in respect of retail developments. As a result, leisure and office developments are being directed towards town centres. This is backed up by a general strategy of supporting transport initiatives which will improve access to such centres.

The traditional approach to assessing the traffic impact of a proposed development was to determine whether the local road network could accommodate the traffic generated. It seems now that most major applications will also have to demonstrate the extent to which the development can be accessed by alternative transport, and suggest how the alternative transport can be provided.

The cost of planning applications is likely to increase, and developers may be required to contribute to finding innovative solutions to deal with public transport access to their developments.

The guidance in respect of business and industrial developments is less clear. It does appear that a more flexible approach may be taken. However, it is likely that access to the site by walking, cycling and public transport will be have an impact on the decision determining the suitability of a location.

The Government has decided to carry out this comprehensive review of transport policy for a number of reasons. Road transport is responsible for about 80% of all transport emissions. It is also the fastest growing source of emissions of CO2, one of the greenhouse gases the Government has undertaken to reduce. In 1995 the United Kingdom introduced a National Air Quality Strategy, and it has been recognised that in many cities transport emissions are a hazard to health and are causing premature deaths.

The transport White Paper was therefore expected to be radical. The document includes much talk of broad concepts such as ''integrated transport solutions''. These seek to find a balance between a transport policy which supports economic needs without damaging the environment.

One of the suggestions is that road charging or a work place parking levy could be implemented by local authorities. This would encourage individuals to leave their cars behind and use other forms of transport. Local authorities could then use the revenue to support public transport developments.

Some commentators have taken the view that the measures contained in the White Paper are not radical enough. There have been calls for an immediate and substantial injection of funding into public transport measures. However this approach would be difficult to reconcile with the Government's public spending targets.

The Government hopes that the introduction of road pricing and car parking charges will go some way to solving the problems associated with

private car use, particularly in cities. However, a key element of overcoming the concerns about pollution and congestion will be to ensure that new developments are compatible with the objectives set out in the White Paper.

If a combination of these measures fails to achieve its aims a more radical approach could be required. Property developers will need to be aware of any further changes in policy and assess the impact this could have on future development.

o Colin Innes is a partner specialising in planning law with commercial law firm Shepherd & Wedderburn.