Scottish Government

GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Question 18: Do you agree that applicants for proposals contrary to an adopted development plan should bear the cost of advertising?

Our research recommended that the costs of advertising be passed on to the applicant wherever possible to ease the financial burden on authorities. Transferring the cost to applicants may be seen as unfair and the costs may be significant if more than one advert is required. However, in departure cases, the applicant is proposing development which is inconsistent with a plan that has been subject to full public scrutiny and involvement. We think that it is reasonable to require the applicant, rather than the community, to bear the cost of advertising in such cases.

5.109 Table 5.16 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 18 for each of the main stakeholder groupings. The Executive's proposal again attracted strong support with 85% of respondents expressing approval only with 10% indicating clear opposition and 5% giving a "mixed" response. Support for the proposal was strong across all stakeholder groups with the exception of businesses, where only 41% were in favour. There were also significant reservations/qualifications from 40% of professional interest respondents, although again the numbers responding here were quite small (10).

5.110 There was widespread support in principle for the proposal which was generally seen to be reasonable, however, a number of practical difficulties were identified by those both for and against the idea. The principal concern was one of timing for, as one planning consultant put it,

"The question as to whether a proposal is contrary to the development plan is not readily answered at the time of submission of an application, and may be very much a matter of judgement."

Particular problems were identified with making judgements on criteria based policies. Consequently, there was a recurrent theme regarding the potential difficulties of administering such a scheme and the need for any proposed procedures to be clarified.

Table 5.16 Views on applicants bearing the cost of departure advertisements

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 80%

5.111 There were several groups of comments either seeking clarification on some of the operational details of the scheme or themselves making suggestions as to how it should operate. One of these concerned the status of the Development Plan. A national voluntary body felt that,

"..charging applicants…would be unreasonable where a local plan is out-of-date or a local plan review has been resisted."

There were views that charges might be reasonable if the plan was less than 5 years old, and a query about what the position would be about a plan that was on deposit.

5.112 There was a cluster of responses concerned with how the advertisement costs would be determined and recovered. There was a view that setting fee levels and identifying where costs could be recovered would require considerable research to ensure that it was fair and equitable. There were queries and suggestions about whether this would be a separate fee or incorporated into the general planning application fee rate, and whether local authorities would be free to determine the rate or whether it would be prescribed nationally. There were also questions about whether the fee would be collected post registration and whether there may need to refunds. The suggestion was also made that the research to be undertaken on the notification of planning application fees (Question 7c) should also cover this issue.

5.113 Those opposed to the change also cited the likelihood of confusion and delay, as well as the additional pressure on authorities to make early decisions about departures. One authority thought that there should be more use made of councils' discretionary powers to advertise anything they considered to be in the public interest. Several community groups and individuals thought that it should not be possible to accept departures, while one suggested that there should be Departure Hearings in such circumstances.

Question 19: Do you agree that costs for advertising listed building and conservation area developments should remain with planning authorities?

Our research recommended that the costs of advertising be passed on to the applicant wherever possible to ease the financial burden on authorities. Transferring the cost to applicants may be seen as unfairly penalising those who live in listed buildings and conservation areas, and the costs may also be significant if more than one advert is required. This appears to us less easy to justify, and we propose that these costs should still be met by the authority.

5.114 Table 5.17 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 19 for each of the main stakeholder groupings. The Executive's proposal again attracted a good deal of support with 71% of respondents expressing approval, but with a relatively significant 20% indicating clear opposition and 9% giving a "mixed" response. Support for the proposal was strong across all stakeholder groups with the exception of local authorities, where only 52% were in favour, while there were also significant reservations/qualifications from 34% of public/politician respondents.

Table 5.17 Views on paying for advertising listed building/conservation area proposals

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 34%

5.115 As this question was not on the questionnaire, the response rate (34%) was significantly below the average. While 137 responses were received, only 57 of these had comments attached. The stakeholder distribution of written responses largely followed the overall pattern of responses, with the exception of local authorities, which accounted for 37% of the total. Submissions with comments were equally split between those for and against the proposal, with local authority responses accounting for 54% of those expressing opposition.

5.116 The main reason cited for agreeing with the proposal, was the fact that applicants had no say in the respective designations affecting their property and should not therefore shoulder any additional financial burden. It was felt that as Scotland's built heritage was important to everyone's quality of life, advertising costs should lie with public authorities. Other respondents considered that this would be consistent with the principle that the equivalent applications are free. There was also support for no change unless the applications were controversial and significant.

5.117 A variety of reasons were put forward in opposition to the proposal. Many authorities agreed with the views of one of their group who pointed out that,

"…administering these applications involves the same level of resources as other applications, sometimes more. The cost to the council of advertising these applications is significant financially and administratively."

Others did not accept the distinction between these and departure adverts made in the consultation document, while there were also views that affected property values were enhanced by the designations and so applicants should bear the cost of adverts. Some respondents thought that the responsibility to fund the adverts should be split between local authorities and Historic Scotland, in accordance with their respective designation responsibilities. A group of responses felt that the Executive should bear the full costs. There was also a call for further research.

Question 20: Would wider use of site notices add to the effectiveness of informing the public?

At present site notices are only required for applications affecting conservation areas or listed buildings. Some people see site notices as an effective way of publicising proposals to a wider audience but they can be removed or subjected to vandalism. A possible role for such a notice might be to better inform the public of what is taking place - it might include a description of the works, anticipated length of operations and the date and reference of relevant permissions.

5.118 Table 5.18 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 20 for each of the main stakeholder groupings. The Executive's proposal again attracted a good deal of support with 74% of respondents expressing approval, but again with a relatively significant 19% indicating clear opposition and 6% giving a "mixed" response. The latter category consisted largely of non-committal responses. Support for the proposal was strong across all stakeholder groups with the exception of local authorities and professional bodies, where only 38% were in favour. Respondents interpreted this question in different ways. Most took it to be referring to the usefulness of site notices in general but there was cluster of responses, which focused on the post-application type of site boards, referred to in the consultation document.

5.119 On the general issue of site notices, there was widespread recognition that they currently suffer from what one local authority described as, "numerous disadvantages". These included: patchy coverage; easily destroyed, defaced or removed; administratively cumbersome and costly to put up and take down; and often illegible and incomprehensible. For these reasons many thought that they were not a particularly effective means for conveying information to the wider public. One authority had carried out a survey of objectors and it revealed that only 2% of respondents found out about a proposal by reading a site notice, (as opposed to 30% from neighbour notification, 27% by word of mouth and 22% from local newspaper notices). There was a view that not only should the use of site notices not be extended, but that it should also cease for the present categories of development and calls were repeated that it would be a better alternative to advertise all applications.

Table 5.18 Views on the wider use of site notices

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 78%

5.120 Supporters of site notices tended to qualify their approval with reference to the potential usefulness of the medium, subject to a number of conditions being met. This was described well in the submission from a national voluntary organisation which indicated that,

"Site notices (and for that matter newspaper adverts) are currently difficult to read, convey little information about the development which is to take place and are unlikely to win any advertising awards. A radical overhaul of layout and content is needed."

In the correct location and associated with other methods of communication it was considered that they could add to the effectiveness of the overall publicity effort. Extending the use of site notices on development contrary to the development plan and for applications subject to EIA's were specifically mentioned. There were alternative views that the process should be mandatory and others that it should be discretionary.

5.121 Many suggestions were made on how to improve the form and content of notices in order to make them clearer and more user-friendly. These included; larger, more colourful notices with bigger print that are water and vandal proof. It was considered that they should be more eye-catching and possibly located in a number of areas on site. There were calls for better information content such as site plans. However, concerns were expressed about the need to take them down afterwards and avoid clutter. A group of respondents suggested that there could be a pilot exercise, which could be evaluated or that further research would be desirable.

5.122 On the specific suggestion in the consultation document for what might be called site boards, there were mixed views. There was a group of responses, which thought it would be a good idea and one consultee indicated that it worked well in the construction industry. However, more generally, it was felt that it would be too late in the process and might cause frustration, as there would be no opportunity for public representations. There were views that responsibility should lie with the developer but that there could be problems of compliance. Some also suggested that there were more fundamental communication issues to address before this one.

SUBMITTING VIEWS AND GETTING FEEDBACK

5.123 A fundamental aspect of effective involvement in planning is not only the requirement to receive good information about prospective development, but also the need to be able make representations and receive feedback on how they have influenced decisions. Questions 21 - 25 in the consultation document addressed these and related matters. This sub-section looks at the responses to these questions.

Question 21: Should official consultation responses be open to all as soon as they are made?

The way in which people can obtain information on the formal responses of consultees to planning applications varies widely. Information is published when reports to committee are made available. Sometimes the results of consultations can be viewed on a copy of the file at the planning office. Third parties may wish to see these responses before the authority takes a decision.

5.124 Table 5.19 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 21 for each of the main stakeholder groupings. This question attracted considerable positive support, with 84% of respondents expressing approval, and 11% indicating clear opposition. There was a relatively small number of "mixed" responses (4%), which consisted largely of non-committal responses. Support for the proposal was strong across all stakeholder groups although 31% of local authority respondents had some reservations or queries. Respondents were not clear from the wording of the question whether this referred only to statutory consultees or all representations received and generally they took the latter view.

Table 5.19 Views on making official consultation responses available immediately

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 78%

5.125 There was strong support for the principle of greater openness and transparency, as well as the recognition that there would be merit in standardising differing current practices, however, this was tempered by the belief that any improvements needed to overcome logistical and procedural difficulties. Some local authorities, in particular, felt that improved access to consultation responses with necessary safeguards built in would require heavy investment in electronic applications processing, with consequent resource implications. There were concerns about the need to screen out confidential and sensitive matters and ensure that Access to Information requirements were properly addressed. Several respondents suggested that names and addresses could be removed from any public record or responses summarised in some way. A recurrent theme was the need to make objectors aware that their representations would be made public and to seek approval before any release. There were also some views that only the responses of statutory consultees should be made available as soon as they are lodged.

5.126 Apart from the principle of more openness, a good cluster of respondents felt that there would be practical benefits from early availability of representations/observations. These included: encouraging applicants to make constructive adjustments to their proposals; informing the debate at planning meeting; and exposing flawed assumptions which should resulting in better quality decision-making . Many respondents, especially amongst community interests and private individuals, made the point that early information was vital. One consultee felt that reports from technical advisers should also be in the public domain.

5.127 On how responses should be made available, the internet and council websites were mentioned most frequently as the cheapest option, but there were also references to newspapers and local libraries. Other respondents pointed out that while files could be inspected at council offices, there was a need for these to be open outwith normal working hours. Many proponents of the early availability of responses also considered that clear central guidance or direction would be essential, with a standard approach adopted across all councils.

5.128 Opponents of the early access approach attached greater weight to some of the points made by those who were generally supportive. Practical difficulties mentioned included the disruption caused by access to working files, problems with invalid objections and the possibility of submissions being withdrawn or amended. One council was concerned that,

"…the process becomes one of cross party discussion on the merits of each parties case rather than each party submitting their case for consideration. This could slow down the speed with which planning authorities are able to process applications and would significantly adversely affect statutory performance indicators."

There was also a strong strand of opinion that early disclosure might result in objectors being pressurised by applicants or that there may be inducements to withdraw objections. This could also make parties hesitant to make comments. It was felt that some comments were private or sensitive and should not be published in any event.

5.129 A significant cluster of respondents felt that there should be some delay before the release of observations and representations, although opinion differed as to the appropriate period. There was support for a deadline for submissions after which they could all be gathered together and published. Suggestions included 21 days, 28 days and 7 days before the Committee meeting. A development industry respondent supported this as a means of reducing what was considered the delays inherent in the present system. Doubts were also expressed about the ability to draw up appropriate access guidelines for councils given the complexity of the issue.

5.130 Finally, there were a number of broad observations about the need for planning authorities generally to be more open in their dealings with the community. There was also a plea for local groups to be involved more in the pre-application stage of discussions with applicants, while one respondent felt it was important that more people who supported applications should make their observations known.