Scottish Government

Getting Involved in Planning: Analysis of Consultation Responses

Geoff Peart Consulting

This document is also available in pdf format (112k)

Main Findings

The findings of the analysis of responses indicated the following main points:

Background

The review of public involvement in planning, directed by the Scottish Executive Development Department (SEDD), comprised 3 strands of consultation and research, of which the consultation exercise formed a part. The 2 related elements, commissioned by Social Research (formerly Central Research Unit) at the Scottish Executive were:

These 3 strands continued a programme of recent consultations concerned with aspects of the planning system, which included the Review of Strategic Planning consultation exercise in 2001-2.

Project Objectives and Methods

The main purpose of the project was to provide an analysis of the comments received to the consultation paper and provide feedback to inform SEDD decisions on the best way forward.

Responses were inserted into a consultation database containing text and numerical fields relating to the 6 main respondent categories which had been identified, and to each of the 32 consultation document questions. Additional fields were created to cover other points made which were not in the consultation document. This enabled the calculation of response rates, and assessment of support for the proposals.

The Response

The Scottish Executive Development Department issued a total of 10,350 consultation documents in 3 different formats: main papers, questionnaires and easy-read booklets. Of these 1180 were sent to identifiable organisations and individuals. In addition, the questions were accessed through the SE website. In total, 402 responses were received (3 respondents made 2 submissions) with a further 29 responses submitted after the closing date. The latter responses were analysed by SEDD, the findings from which were broadly consistent with those from the independent analysis of the core responses.

Table 1 shows the breakdown of responses by stakeholder group. The main finding to note is the dominance of the voluntary sector and public in the total response. However, while there was a considerably skewed distribution of responses across the 6 main stakeholder categories, it was considered that a reasonably good cross section of interested opinion had been received.

Table 1: Distribution of Responses

Key Findings from the Consultation

General Points

Some stakeholders queried whether there was a widespread desire for greater involvement, while others saw this as part of a broader approach to increased citizen participation in government. More effective involvement was not only a matter of better information and procedures, but also required increased capacity building amongst participants. There were tensions between greater involvement and speeding up the process which would require to be managed and issues regarding available resources for effective implementation. The specific proposal to set up local policy planning forums had broad support subject to clarification of their remit, status, composition and resourcing.

Involvement in Development Planning

The principle of giving people early warning of changes to plans which might affect them, was generally supported. The specific proposal regarding notification of those directly affected was very popular with the voluntary sector and public respondents, but planning authorities were concerned about the practicalities of the process. The 2 measures intended to strengthen the independence of the Reporter were very well supported by all groups, and it was thought that they would help to build more public confidence in
the system. There was, however, little support for the suggestion that costs would continue to be recovered from local authorities, with the more prevalent view that this should be a Scottish Executive responsibility.

There was a wide range of suggestions on how to make local plan adoption both faster and more user-friendly, although some doubted that this was possible. Recommendations on how to speed the process up focused on: reducing the number of consultation stages; shorter plans focusing on key issues; the wider use of model policies; and better project management with tighter deadlines. A more user-friendly approach required early effective engagement with the community and other stakeholders, the use of simple, jargon-free language in documents and meetings, greater use of the internet, together with more guidance and assistance with procedures.

Involvement in Development Control

Applying for Planning Permission

There was widespread support for the introduction of a standard application form, written in plain English and with easy-read guidance notes. It was felt that there should be further consultation on the design and content, and a pilot exercise should be undertaken before full implementation.

Publicising Development

The proposal to transfer the duty of general neighbour notification from applicants to local authorities was the most controversial measure in the consultation document. There was a high level of support amongst most stakeholder groups but many local authorities were opposed to, or had serious reservations about, the proposal on logistical and resource grounds.

There was a large majority opposed to the possible exclusion of non-domestic lessees from notification arrangements on the grounds that those likely to be affected by proposed developments should be informed and given the opportunity to comment.

Proposals to extend the scope of notification to some advertisements and to enforcement notices and to encourage greater publicity to be given to enforcement action were strongly supported except by local authorities and businesses where views were divided. There were views that people likely to be affected by development extended beyond the current "neighbour" definition and that wider notification/publicity would be desirable.

Information supplied under existing arrangements (application forms, notifications, site notices, weekly lists, and statutory adverts etc.) was generally considered to be inadequate in both form and content. There were pleas again for greater use of plain English and simplicity of layout wherever possible. The general view was that there should be consistent approaches and responsibilities across all notification and advertisement procedures.

Submitting Views and Getting Feedback

There was a high level of support for the standardisation on a 21-day consultation period for responding to neighbour notification and statutory advertisements. This would overcome difficulties arising from holidays, frequency of community council meetings, etc and reduce public confusion over different time scales.

All stakeholder groups agreed that it would be helpful to have standard ways to make comments on applications electronically, subject to a number of technical matters being resolved and other conventional means remaining available. There was also support, although not universal, for a national form for comments with some element of flexibility to respond to local circumstances.

Proposals to make official consultation responses publicly available immediately, and other responses in due course, attracted high levels of cross sector support, although there were concerns about confidentiality and possible applicant pressure or harassment.

Information and feedback on decisions was generally considered to be poor. There was almost universal support for the consultation document proposals for improvement, but a need for further clarification of both the form and content of the proposed reports on decision factors and reasons. While posting on the web was felt to be the long-term solution, in the interim the information needed to be available from council offices and local libraries

Resolving Objections

There was substantial agreement, except from business and professional respondents, with the Executive's proposal to reduce the period for making appeals from 6 to 2 months. Although there were no proposals to introduce third party right of appeal, voluntary sector and individual respondents felt that they had no effective remedies in the face of bad planning decisions and that the Executive should give further consideration to the issue.

It was felt that PLIs should be less legal and adversarial and the location, timing and layout of venues for inquiries need to be more convenient for the community.

There was a view that a pilot exercise in mediation in planning was worth trying both to resolve practical implementation issues and test its potential.

National Co-ordination

The proposals for a national consultative group and electronic opportunities working group were both well supported. Key concerns were that they should involve a wide mix of interests and have a clear, task-focused remits.

The general view of respondents was that the co-ordination of local and national helpline services was a sensible proposal which would provide a measure of consistency and should be explored

Resource Implications

Many of the proposed measures would require additional expenditure, mainly for local authorities but also potentially for the Executive, applicants and community groups. There was support for the activities of Planning Aid Scotland and agreement that the organisation should be put on a firmer financial footing.

It was generally recognised that the transfer of neighbour notification duties would have the most significant cost implications and the need to look at fees in this context was widely supported. However, given some views that the planning service as a whole was under-funded and the fact that other measures in the consultation paper had resource implications, a wider review of funding than that proposed was also suggested.