Scottish Government

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Clarify guidance relating to use of Planning Agreements (called Section 75 Agreements), particularly in relation to Affordable Housing.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

This is not thought to involve any material net change in time/cost/skill requirements.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Should result in a higher level of affordable housing provision within a framework of transparent decisions and greater certainty for applicants, as well as a sound basis for the enforcement of agreements.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

Cost neutral.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Time/cost neutral, while improving the effectiveness of related arrangements.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Promote the use of IT to encourage provision of planning information and services online.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

The efficiency savings estimated by ODPM appear optimistic - Arup work estimates the total cost of planning in England to be around £870m. As such, savings of up to £520m would represent a 60% reduction in cost. This is not thought to be realistic. A saving of £43m per year for Scottish Authorities would be equivalent to an estimated 44% saving across the entire planning service.
Conversely, experience of English authorities is unfortunately that the move towards e-planning, at least in the short term, involves an increase in costs through both capital expenditure on equipment and infrastructure and revenue costs in installation, training and additional administrative/technical staff for document scanning and filing.
Significant savings can be made in terms of ease of performance management and tracking.
Significant time requirements for administrative staff in the long-term for document recognition and filing/retrieval.
Would impact on all sections of the planning service and in most cases could result in an increase in absolute workload, i.e. increases in representations to applications through ease of viewing applications online and submitting representations online, increases in queries/representation to development planning through being able to view policies/plans online and submit comments online, increased numbers of enforcement complaints and queries to be chased up due to better public guidance online and the ability to lodge complaints/report potential breaches online etc.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Substantial benefits to accessibility of information and the potential for inclusiveness.
E-planning can prove in some ways inefficient for Local Authorities. In transition, duplicate files are kept. Even once fully e-enabled, authorities are still usually required to print and manually transfer applications (and plans) for statutory consultees, not all of who are similarly e-enabled. Similar problems can be experienced within the authority where consulting with other sections.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

The majority of authorities are well advanced in their progression towards a fully compliant e-planning service. As such, most of the capital cost investment has already been instigated.
In the short term transition period it is likely that costs might increase while both systems run in parallel.
In the longer term, significant costs savings are as yet unproven. While it is believed that e-planning promotes greater efficiency in many of the core planning tasks, this also comes with increased participation and a new work stream in capturing and managing e-systems.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

E-planning in practice promotes a greater level of effective working and inclusiveness. It also greatly enhances the quality and convenience of the planning process. However, claims of potential cost savings have yet to be consistently demonstrated on a large scale.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Streamlining or amalgamation of application and consent procedures for planning, conservation areas and listed buildings, although this would need further consultation and development.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

Marginal time/cost savings to local authorities through efficiency gains - only one form/consent in place of two or more. Marginal due to the limited number of such consents when compared to other types of applications.
Effect likely to be felt unevenly due to uneven nature of CA/ LB designations.
Possible scope to introduce fee as part of streamlining to assist cost recovery.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

In practice this would have equity considerations as an application solely related to LBC might now attract a fee. Previous research has highlighted some scope for partial cost recovery through an administrative fee.
Streamlining of system would offer benefits to applicants by avoiding duplication.
Potential danger of incentivising development 'outside of the system', particularly in cases for LBC for internal works.
Equity considerations in terms of the level of coverage and fee that could/should be levied - e.g. from painting a front door to substantial structural works.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

While streamlining or amalgamation would offer genuine efficiency savings, particularly to administrative staff, the overall level of this saving compared to the 'mainstream' workload is minimal. As such, the net cost effect is thought to be zero.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Streamlining would produce some efficiency gains within administration, and marginal efficiency gains in determination. Levying a fee would assist in cost recovery.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Reduce time period allowed for appeals to be lodged from six months to three months.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

Experience in England is that such a reform would lead to a short term increase in appeals lodged equivalent to that normally submitted in 3 months and lead a to rise in the propensity to appeal as the measure seems to encourage applicants to appeal rather than resubmit revised proposals. In both cases this could mean a significant rise in appeals workload. However, this should be considered against other measures to restore balance and fairness in the appeal system including early determination of planning appeals where an appeal clearly does not merit more extensive consideration, and reverting appeals to be a review of the decision made.
There is currently a divide in how authorities resource their requirements in association with appeal work. Some have dedicated appeals staff, while others rely upon input from case officers (with resulting implications for mainstream development control caseload). Where a case is large, complex or comes at a time of peak caseload, consultants can be engaged to avoid a member of the Development Control team being in effect 'taken out of circulation'.
Any increase in appeal caseload would have significant impacts at case officer level, the level at which authorities currently find it hardest to meet their recruiting requirements.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Possible rise in the propensity to appeal as a reduced timescale might necessitate an appeals where negotiations prove unsatisfactory immediately after determination, as well as allowing less time for resolution/mitigation of matters prior to a potential resubmission when an application might be salvaged.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

Considered in isolation of other reforms aimed at simplifying and expediting the appeal process, if this resulted in an increased propensity to appeal, then costs could be significant. If the increased workload were to be equivalent to an average of half a day per week for one FTE member of staff at a senior professional level, then across Scotland the estimated cost implication would be £335,310.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Considered in isolation, this measure is likely to lead to an increase in the number of appeals (as currently handled) with significant resulting impacts on the caseload of senior officers.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Appeals should be a proper review of LA decision, looking at all the info they did, rather than a 'de novo' consideration

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

Compared to current practices that involve significant document review and preparation, this could present substantial time/resource savings, particularly at Case Officer level.
It is still likely that at least the Case Officer, and possibly any specialist appeals staff or Management would want to attend any appeal hearing if that were the chosen form for resolution. In the case of written submissions, the time impact to the authority would be negligible on the basis that existing material would be used to determine the appeal.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

This would still enable the applicant to exercise their right to appeal, while also possibly providing an incentive to 'get it right first time'.
Possible resistance from developers who are often keen to provide supporting evidence at appeal, including proof of evidence, specialist witnesses etc. If the proposal could be shown to be both effective and fair then there are also potentially large cost savings for the applicant/appellant.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

Assumed to be minor to negligible depending on the form the appeal hearing takes, and the effect of other proposals on the overall level of appeals.
Appeal work (also including Enforcement) is currently estimated to cost almost £6.4m across the planning system. A large proportion of the appeal component of this cost could be reduced under this proposal, probably about one third of the time spent.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Represents potentially significant time and cost savings compared to current practices that would free up resource to assist in performance improvement elsewhere within the planning service.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Allow applicants to submit planning agreements as part of the appeal process, to speed up decision making.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

This is not thought to have any material time/cost/skill impacts for Local Authorities.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Likely to speed up decision-making on appeals.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

Cost neutral.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Resource neutral for Local Authorities.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Introduction of Standard Application Forms for planning and related consents.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

Current ODPM consultation is based upon Arup assessment of issues and impacts: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_036838.hcsp

Small saving to administrative staff and case officers resulting from clearer guidance and understanding on the part of applicants as to what is required, resulting in easier validation/registration and determination with the required information as part of the initial application rather than chased through subsequent requests.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Would help to ensure a consistently high standard of applications, through providing consistency and clear guidance to applicants. Guidance would only need to be prepared once (possibly centrally by the Executive) and could be shared amongst authorities.
Would help authorities to speed up validation/registration processes, resulting in overall performance improvements. Would also make administrative staff transition between authorities easier, and would enable learning/training resources to be prepared and shared.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

Making forms electronic could reduce printing costs, although these are a low proportion of the overall cost of providing the planning service.
If statutory consultees required hard copies of applications (including plans and supporting documentation) then this could potentially increase costs. Current experience in England highlighted this as a potential barrier to full e-delivery along a single application form.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Part of improving the quality and consistency of the planning service and the quality of applications. Marginal efficiency savings in terms of cost of producing forms in hard copy.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Advertising weekly lists.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

Cost associated with preparing and funding advertisements, which would be undertaken by administrative staff, with final approval of wording occasionally necessary by case officers, although this is usually fairly standardised.
Advertising costs can be high relative to the application fee for smaller applications. However, this might just be electronic/through website as there is not likely to be a requirement to advertise in newspapers, so cost to LA would be neutral/minimal.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Would ensure that the application was consulted upon in an objective fashion, and as such would increase public confidence that they were being reasonably informed of applications.
Costs might be reduced if the advertising were web-based as part of the planning service move towards e-planning.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

The direct cost of advertising would vary according to the level of applications and the media used for the advertisement.
Staff costs would probably be equivalent to half a day per week for an average of one FTE member of administrative staff at an estimated total national cost of £167,655.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Some staff costs associated with preparing and administering adverts.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Power to decline to determine applications.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

The effect of this measure is likely to depend on the extent of work required to decide that a determination is not possible. Non-determination is still a 'decision' and is arrived at through parts (but not all) of same process as for other decisions. If such a decision were to be challengeable - there is a clear need for the authority to be thorough in the process of non-determination and so in effect conduct a thorough review of the reasons and scope to not determine.
There should be large savings on these applications if the substance of the application would not require to be assessed and decision not to determine could be dispatched fairly quickly. The proposal allows non-determination to take place on basis of similar cases that planning authority itself has previously dealt with, not just SEIRU cases, as at present. Therefore could be a larger number of cases involved, with potential time and cost savings. Alternatively, the provision might lead in time to less of these applications being submitted in the first place.
An application would most likely still require validation and registration. In practice some of these cases could be addressed by refusing to validate the application, although clearer advice on what constitutes a valid application would be required. It would then be passed to an officer/team. If it is decided that non-determination identifying the reasons for non determination should probably be prepared so that there is a clear audit trail.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Assuming a decision would be made immediately after validation/registration there is scope for considerable savings.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

The purpose of proposal is to avoid any serious consideration of the proposal. If this can be achieved, such, as cost savings could be significant.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Cost saving, but likely to apply to a small number of applications.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Reduction in the duration of Planning Consents from 5 years to 3 years.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

This would result in a longer-term increase in planning applications seeking to renew permissions, although the actual level of increase that would result is not clear.
As such, all areas of Development Management would see their resource requirements increase accordingly as for a 'normal' application, i.e. if the reduction in duration of planning consents led to a 10% increase in applications, assuming that the consents that are renewed are representative, then the cost of the Development Management service would increase by 10% correspondingly. However these cases would still attract a fee and determination of extra applications might not be as demanding - the assessment of an application to renew a permission should be easier that dealing with the original application.
The implication of this proposal is that there is a need both to increase the speed by which consents are taken up and to allow opportunities for the authority to refuse to renew a permission where the proposal is no longer appropriate as a result of changed policy or new information on impacts. However, many authorities currently fear the compensation implications of refusing applications to renew permissions.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Reduction in the life of a consent would improve the extent to which developments are enacted within the correct (and up-to-date) policy framework.
Reduction in the life of a consent would increase the impetus upon developers to enact their consents within a reasonable timeframe. This would help with planning and monitoring of any Development Plan Action Programme.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

Fee-related development control work is thought to account for almost 30% of the total cost of the Planning Service, equivalent to £29.4m each year. If the reduction in duration of planning consents led to a 10% increase in application numbers (and if those applications were generally representative in terms of their scale and complexity) this would lead to an additional resource requirement equivalent to £2.9m.
Assuming planning application fees are set at full cost recovery, the resource requirement could be resourced from the increase in application fee income.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Would result in an increase in planning application numbers, although fees could offset the costs of these.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Amendments to powers on Tree Preservation Orders including additional monitoring and review.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

New duty to monitor and review TPOs likely to require additional resources, with some specialist skills required.
New duty to consult with Forest Commission and to notify neighbours would require some extra level of administrative provision in both screening for the need to consult and in issuing letters.
Could be potentially problematic for authorities covering a large geographic area but with limited specialist resources. In these cases the burden would most probably pass on to the existing staff in each area team.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Some elements of this work are already being carried out as Local Authority best practice, although the proposals would still result in an increased burden overall.
Likely to represent an increase in the overall quality of service.
TPOs are usually designated when threatened by development in a more reactive fashion. Extra resources might enable a more proactive approach to tree care and conservation. Additional work in this area could be accompanied by a modest fee for applications to lop, fell etc trees subject to a TPO.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

The proposals are likely to require the additional recruitment of an average of one FTE trees officer on a full-time basis per authority this is estimated to result in an annual net cost increase of around £2.8m (£558,851 times five days per week).

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Likely to have significant resource/specialist skill requirements.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Mezzanine Floors to be brought into the planning system, to mitigate the potentially harmful impact on the amenity and environment of an area. Likely to relate primarily to retail applications.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

In the short-term likely to result in a modest increase in application numbers (and possibly appeals).
Not thought to have any significant long-term resource impacts, as applicants would respond to the policy shift. Beyond this applications would be sporadic and concentrated to areas of development pressure, primarily in areas of retail development intensification.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

This would provide a means of ensuring quality developments that meet current policy objectives.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

It is not thought that authorities would handle many of these applications in any one year. If they were to result in a 0.5% increase in application numbers (which itself is felt to be a generous assumption), this would result in an increase in costs for Development Control of an estimated £146,780 (0.5% of the total fee-related development control cost, estimated to be around £29.4m. This £146,780 is approximately equivalent to extra two hours casework per week for a Junior Development Control Officer.
Assuming planning application fees are set at full cost recovery, the resource requirement could be resourced from the increase in application fee income, although they may be a need to recruit 'in advance' of the increase in demand in order to avoid any related dip in planning performance.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

A small increase in applications in the short-term covered by planning application fees.

REFORM PROPOSAL:

Updating the provisions on historic environment protection.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TIME/RESOURCE IMPACTS:

No material impact upon Local Authorities, assuming the updating does not have the effect of increasing LBC applications.

LOCAL AUTHORITY EFFICIENCY/QUALITY IMPACTS:

Updating legislation would empower authorities to continue conservation and preservation.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FINANCIAL/COST IMPACTS:

Cost neutral.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

Cost neutral for Local Authorities.