Scottish Government

GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

CHAPTER FIVE: INVOLVEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

INTRODUCTION

5.1 For many people the main way in which they become involved in planning is through the submission of a planning application or in making objections to one. Consequently, the major part of this consultation exercise was concerned with these processes and the following 23 questions looked at different parts of the process and invited comments on possible changes. The questions fell into 4 broad categories: applying for planning permission; publicising development, submitting views/getting feedback and resolving objections. The following sub-sections look at each of these elements in turn.

APPLYING FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

5.2 As the consultation document indicated, making a planning application can seem complicated. Failure to fill forms in correctly and supply all the relevant information is a major cause of delay. While there is much good practice across Scotland, the Executive considered that there is scope to make the process more user-friendly.

Question 6: We see merit in standard application forms for all councils. They could be user-friendly, with translation and all necessary certificates. Do you agree?

Many authorities have improved the design of their forms but there may be merit in standard forms for all authorities. Application forms and guidance should be written in a way that users can understand. We also think that help for applicants is an important part of customer care and should be offered throughout Scotland at council offices, by phone, and internet.

5.3 Table 5.1 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Overall a very high proportion (92%) of respondents supported the proposal with only 5% expressing clear opposition. The "mixed" response to this question consisted of "don't knows" and "no comment" together with a small number who saw both "pros " and "cons".

Table 5.1 Views on the introduction of a standard planning application form

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 84%

5.4 There was a high degree of unanimity amongst all stakeholder groups on this question, with support varying between 100% from local authority, business and professional and academic respondents to 89% of the public body and public at large responses. However, many did express some qualification to their support for the proposal. There was virtually no comment on pre-application discussions, although it was raised in answers to other questions in this section of the consultation.

5.5 Most respondents agreed with the proposal without giving any explicit reasons for doing so other than it would be helpful, beneficial or sensible. However, those that did give reasons suggested that it would be less confusing for applicants, that it would reduce mistakes and invalid applications and would therefore be likely to speed up processing. A prominent theme was the need to draw on existing good practice from Scotland and the rest of the UK. There was strong support across all respondee sectors for simplification, the use of plain English and for a good, user-friendly design. There were concerns from local authorities that any revised wording should be sufficiently robust to stand up to legal challenge and also support for "easy read" guidance notes which, it was considered, should be based on a common interpretation of the Planning Act. It was also suggested that the General Development Procedures Order would need to be revised to define a valid planning application.

5.6 Those in favour of the proposal, thought that there should be widespread consultation and piloting of the form beforehand involving all stakeholder groups including the general public. Another respondent felt that the forms should be reviewed regularly in the light of feedback from users.

5.7 The form and content of application forms attracted some comment. There was considerable support, especially amongst local authorities, for the electronic submission of forms. Disability groups pointed out that a range of formats (including braille) might be required to meet the needs of disabled people. One response suggested that the application form should indicate where advice was available to assist completion of the form. Few commented on the need for translation and of those that did, most thought it might be too costly or unnecessary. However, some thought that other ways of helping ethnic groups might be more effective (dedicated staff with language skills). There was a call from one individual consultee for the forms to be available in Gaelic.

5.8 Several respondents thought that this review of the forms presented a good opportunity to collect more information from applicants on environmental and other matters, but one respondent cautioned that any changes should be compatible with existing recording systems. There were also suggestions that any revised form could cover Listed Buildings, Building Warrants and information relating to Planning Supervisers required under Health and Safety legislation. A few respondents suggested a family of forms to cover different types and scales of development. A small group of responses raised the issue of extending the standardisation approach to plans, drawings and other supporting information.

5.9 The main qualification to support for the proposal was the extent to which there would be some flexibility to make minor modifications or local additions to the standard form. A number (though not most) of local authorities and several other respondents raised this issue. It was suggested that the Executive could prescribe a minimum content and structure with a requirement for the local authority to obtain SEDD approval for significant changes or additions . Countering this view, a small number felt that councils should not be allowed to vary the form for their own purposes and that there should be absolute consistency throughout Scotland.

5.10 Those opposed to standardised forms tended to cite the fact that the present arrangements were satisfactory or that all parts of the country are not the same and therefore, councils should provide the forms that best meet the needs of their local circumstances. As Table 5.1 indicates, this was very much a minority view.

PUBLICISING DEVELOPMENT

5.11 The following set of 15 questions focused on how people are informed about developments in their area. At present this happens most directly through Neighbour Notification of adjacent owners and occupiers. Questions 7 - 13 and Question 28 dealt with various aspects of this process and canvassed views on potential changes. Questions 14 - 20 were concerned more generally with advertising development proposals to the broader community, and again comments were invited on a number of suggestions for change.

Neighbour Notification

Question 7a: Do you agree that authorities should take responsibility for neighbour notification?

The present system is based upon self-certification by the applicant. It differs from England and Wales where planning authorities have the duty to make sure notification takes place. If authorities carried out notification, it should be more consistent, the notice should be more accurate, plans and documents would be available for inspection and the period for making representations should correspond to the period when the authority cannot determine the application. This should raise public confidence in the system.

5.12 Table 5.2 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Overall 74% of respondents supported the proposal with 18% expressing clear opposition. The "mixed" response to this question consisted of many "don't knows" and "no comments", although there was also a small number of responses which identified arguments for and against change without coming to any conclusion and others seeking further information. There was a reasonably high level of support amongst all stakeholder groups on this question, with the exception of local authorities, and to a lesser extent, businesses. Support from those with a balance in favour of change varied from 82% amongst professional and voluntary sector respondents to 58% from businesses (those with concerns came almost entirely from the development industry). However, only 28% of local authorities clearly supported the proposal.

Table 5.2: Views on whether local authorities should have neighbour notification duties

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 84%

5.13 A significant number of those responding to the questionnaire provided reasons for their support. Some indicated that the present arrangements were not working satisfactorily and agreed with the list of weaknesses set out in the consultation document. Typical comments included:

"The current system…is extremely cumbersome, involves the planning authority in excessive explanation and correction, leaves the applicant and council open to subsequent legal challenge and frankly, discredits the planning system." (Local Authority)

"The neighbour notification process in Scotland is an intolerable burden on the applicant, is excessively complex and bureaucratic and is the least user-friendly aspect of the whole system." (Planning Consultant)

5.14 The advantages cited about moving to a local authority based system, also largely followed the reasons set out in the consultation document. Proponents of change felt that this would ensure greater consistency and reduce errors, authorities were likely to have better information and be more efficient and effective in discharging their responsibilities. The problem of plans not being available for inspection, following notification, was mentioned a number of times, and this would be removed under the Executive's proposals. Many community groups and individual respondents supported the change, which was considered to be more impartial and likely to increase public confidence in the system.

5.15 Support for the proposal was almost universally conditional on the provision of the necessary resources, which were expected to be significant (see also Question 7b). There were some concerns that any increase in costs would not be borne by the taxpayer and few suggestions that they should just be absorbed.

5.16 There was considerable support, across all sectors and from parties for and against the proposal, for further clarification of who was entitled to be notified under the regulations. While it was suggested that existing procedures were being abused by some applicants, it was felt that a wider definition of "neighbour" was necessary. A number of community councils made specific proposals which included: notifying all residents within a certain radius (e.g. 90m); different radii for different sizes of development, which in some instances might include a whole village. There was also the suggestion that community councils and other community groups should be notified about proposed developments in their areas.

5.17 Opponents of the change, who were largely from local authorities and the development industry, mentioned a number of factors in support of their views. These included the increased administrative burden, severe strain on existing resources, and likely delay in the processing of planning applications. Others thought that there had been no problems with the present system, which was considered to be working reasonably well.

5.18 The principal objections were with the proposed system which was perceived to have a number of drawbacks. It would be very expensive and administratively onerous, putting more pressure on overworked staff. The property information and databases were not yet sufficiently well developed and accurate to prevent identification errors, which in turn could lead to legal challenge or referral to the Ombudsman. There was also a view that the English experience was not particularly successful. Local authorities were particularly concerned about when an application would become legally valid and "the two month clock start ticking" and hence that the proposals would have an adverse impact on their performance figures unless allowance was made for the new procedures. This was also of concern to those who supported the change.

5.19 A number of responses accepted there were problems but thought that the way forward was to make the existing system work better. In this context suggestions for improvements were made and included:

• Review the definition of notifiable neighbour
• Encourage more pre-application discussions with affected parties
• Prohibit the service of the notice until the application has been lodged
• Make proof of service of notification (eg. by recorded delivery) compulsory
• Introduce penalties (non registration) for the failure to serve notices properly
• Issue best practice guidance on procedures.

5.20 Some responses also indicated that a more fundamental review of the whole process should be launched with a view to finding a more effective procedure. Specific alternative suggestions were also put forward, including the compromise method referred to in the consultation document, that applicants should identify who were the relevant parties and councils would actually serve the notice on them. A variant of this proposed that applicants could have the option of paying the local authority to carry out the notification on their behalf or that applicants could deal with smaller applications while councils dealt with the larger ones. Some respondents thought such arrangements might confuse accountability. There was one view that councils should have the total flexibility to notify neighbours in the way which best serves their locality. However, the alternative suggestion, which attracted the most support from local authorities, was that neighbour notification should be scrapped altogether and replaced by a system of statutory advertisements for all applications accompanied by site notices.

Question 7b: Do you agree that application fees should be increased to cover their extra costs?

We think there are potential benefits in transferring the duty to authorities but appreciate that this will bring them extra costs. There will be some scope to defray costs through good practice and use of new technology but extra revenue would be needed for Councils to discharge the new duty effectively. This implies an increase in the applicant's fee to the authority.

5.21 Table 5.3 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Overall 91% of respondents supported the proposal with only 9% expressing clear opposition. There was a very high level of support amongst all stakeholder groups on this proposal, with the exception of businesses (54%), and to a lesser extent, public bodies (67%), although numbers in the latter case were exceptionally small (3). There was 100% support from local authorities and professional respondents, but also a high proportion in favour amongst the voluntary sector (94%) and public consultees (91%).

5.22 There was widespread cross sector support for the proposition that the proposals should be adequately resourced. A number felt that present levels were insufficient and, consequently, a significant increase would be required. Some councils had estimated the additional staff required and one considered that fees would have to rise by 40 per application to cover the extra expenditure. Many respondents indicated that any increased income should reflect the full costs of staff, administrative systems and IT support and that it should be directly linked to inflation rates. Business interests were concerned that any fee increase was linked to some improvement in service and a local authority that fee income was "ring fenced" for planning purposes.

Table 5.3 Views on whether application fees should be increased

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 67%

5.23 Many responses were concerned with the basis on which fees should be calculated. Comments included the need to be realistic, reasonable and proportional to the scale of the development. One respondent considered that at present fees were too high for smaller developments but too low for the larger ones. A group of community councils supported some form of sliding scale of charges. It was also pointed out by some consultees that there needed to be a decision as to whether there would be a standard charge, or one based on the number of notifications to be carried out. One authority thought that there should not be a national charge but one set at the local level and there was another suggestion that each application should be charged individually on the actual time spent on the case.

5.24 Respondents who did not support the proposal cited a variety of reasons. Some thought that neighbour notification was essentially of benefit to the community so it was appropriate that local authorities should bear the cost. Several respondents thought that the costs should be borne centrally and paid to authorities as additional grant. One council thought that passing on costs to the applicant would not be considered good customer care, while a business consultee felt that the need for an increase in fees should await the outcome of the proposed research.

Question 7c: Do you agree that research is carried out to help decide the fee increase required?

The correct level of increase in the applicant's fee to the authority will need to be considered, as a large rise in fees may unduly burden applicants, particularly for small scale or householder developments. Some of these may involve significant work in identifying and serving all those with an interest in neighbouring land. We suggest research to inform any increase in fee levels.

5.25 Table 5.4 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Only 24% of respondents answered this question, which was not on the questionnaire. Overall 76% of respondents supported the proposal with 19% expressing clear opposition, and 5% with mixed views. There was a very high level of support amongst all stakeholder groups in relation to this question, with the proportions in favour varying from 100% amongst public bodies (only 4 respondents) to 69% in the voluntary sector. Businesses (29%), and the voluntary sector (31%) had the most reservations.

Table 5.4 Views on whether research on fees is required

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 24%

5.26 Generally, it was considered that research was required to help decide the appropriate fee increase. Most comments related to the possible scope of the research. Some were concerned with the identification of all the relevant costs. These included various staff operations as well as administrative and technical support systems. It was also felt that there was a need to identify the costs borne by local authorities at present due to incomplete notification, and the likely cost of any liabilities through faulty notification in the future. There was a view that authorities would be able to provide their own estimates once the new procedure was specified. The issue of whether charges should be standard or whether there could be local variations was also mentioned. On broader issues, there was a call for all the various alternative systems of notification to be researched and that the under-funding of the planning function itself, together with the identification of potential sources of new revenue, should also be investigated.

5.27 Respondents opposed to further research indicated that some work had already been done on this matter and called for existing findings to be implemented. There were some views that the councils know these costs and that specific research was not necessary. Others were opposed on cost grounds and doubts that the exercise would provide value for money.