ISBN 0 7559 6018 1 (Web only publication)
This document is also available in pdf format (176k)
Attendees
Phil Gelsthorpe Glasgow City Council
Julie Hamilton Clackmannanshire Council
David Leslie City of Edinburgh Council
Michael Lowndes Scottish Executive: PL1
Malcolm Macleod Highland Council
Jane Macrory Scottish Executive: PL2
Apologies
Nicholas Mclaren Inverclyde Council
Introduction
1. Following a welcome by ML, there was a constructive discussion on the draft final report which was circulated to group members in advance of the meeting. For ease of reference, the main points raised in discussion are categorised below following the order of the questions posed in the draft final report.
Should all advertisement applications be subject to neighbour notification?
2. It was agreed that for simplicity, all planning applications, including advertisement applications should be subject to neighbour notification.
Who should be directly notified? (Development Control)
3. The group agreed that the identification of neighbouring properties is relatively straight forward either through site visits or GIS and other computer programmes. The difficulty lies in finding out the names of owners/occupiers/lessees. A discussion followed on the merits of the Valuation Roll, and the Land Registry. There was consensus that the Land registry provided a more valuable source of information; however neither provides a fully up to date picture. The Land Register is expensive to use but contracts can be negotiated. If planning authorities are required to ascertain the names of the owner/occupier/lessee, the target for a 5 day validation period will not always be achieved. The preference of the working group is for neighbour notification certificates to be addressed simply to the owner/occupier for domestic properties, and the owner/occupier/lessee for non-domestic properties. This would, be no less effective as a way of addressing neighbours but probably much less expensive.
4. Members agreed that the new definition of "neighbouring land" would make the identification of neighbouring property clearer. There is however, remaining concern over difficulties in applying the definition to tenemental properties - for example where a planning application would impact not just the tenement block but in addition those which share a communal backcourt or front garden, e.g. a fast food establishment with associated flue/extraction fan. Action: Ascertain how such instances are handled in the English system.
How should direct notified be carried out? (Development Control)
5. The group agreed that "reasonable effort" in carrying out neighbour notification should be discretionary to individual planning authorities. No "one size" fits all. The most efficient method of carrying out notification will vary between rural and urban authorities. It was agreed that a list of methods should be set out in supporting guidance or advice including combined site visits and hand delivery of notices, use of GIS, and computer programmes with computer generated notices, notices issued by recorded delivery, signed for service, or business post. The group advised against the use of registered post to avoid the instances where people would refuse to receive it or were not at home to receive it. Business post was suggested to be the most cost effective postage method. Action: Seek advice from England.
Who should be directly notified? (Development Planning)
6. It was agreed that for consistency, the same criteria should be used for identifying neighbours as for planning applications.
7. Additional advice is required on instances where the local authority is the promoter of a development proposal or has an ownership interest. While the Planning Bill proposes a schedule of land ownership to form each local development plan including local authority owned land, neighbour notification should still be required. This is an issue over the feasibility of the planning authority being seen to promote its own sites/or sites in which they have an interest. Action: Seek advice from England on arrangements for notification on planning applications in which the Council have an interest.
When should direct notification be done? (Development Control)
8. It was agreed that neighbour notification should be done as early in the process as possible, but further clarity on the arrangements for validation is needed in the report so that the trigger for notification can not be disputed. Discussion followed on the requirements for neighbour notification and re-notification where there are variations to planning application. Action: Further information to be provided in report following visit to English Planning Authorities to ascertain when in the process is best to NN and what guidance and advice is available on variations and re-notification.
When should direct notification be done? (Development Planning)
9. It was agreed that planning authorities should neighbour notify at the proposed plan stage. It was agreed that additional re- notification should take place where amendments are made at pre or post inquiry stage which change the detail or location of development sites or where new sites are proposed. There is a question regarding instances where the planning authority does not wish to accept new sites put forward by the Reporter. In the new system this should be very rare but SE will investigate the matter further with SEIRU.
What information should be included in the notification? (Development Control)
10. It was agreed that the neighbour notification certificate should be supplemented with a one page guide explaining the objector's rights with a brief statement about the decision making process. Action: SE to investigate potential of publishing a standard form in plain English. Clackmannanshire template to be forwarded to SE.
What information should be provided with a notification of changes in policies or proposals in a local plan? (Development Planning)
11. The group agreed that alongside notification, information on the development planning process should be included. This could potentially include a copy of the planning authorities Development Plan Scheme setting out the planning authorities timescale for producing and reviewing the development plan, and how, when and where the public can engage in that process. Action: SE to investigate potential of publishing a standard form/ flowchart showing the stages of plan preparation.
What safeguards would be needed to ensure that direct notification reaches the correct people and what happens if there are mistakes?
12. The working group agreed that it would be appropriate in Scotland to apply the "reasonable effort" test used in England in 1) identifying who the neighbours are, and 2) ensuring that the neighbours receive the notice. In identifying who the neighbours are, a discussion followed on the possibility of developing some form of sequential approach to ascertain what "reasonable effort" is.
Means of identifying neighbours?
13. It was agreed that the most practical and most comprehensiveness method would be better to send a notice addressed to the owner/occupier/lessee. A site visit to ascertain who the neighbours are might be required to reduce risk of error, however this has time and cost implications in more rural areas. The use of GIS and other computer packages, the valuation roll and land register might also reduce the risk of error. The Land Register may be the only way of establishing who owns/occupies vacant land. It was agree that Planning authorities should be able to choose the method which suits them best. Action: Liaise with England.
What other methods of notification could supplement direct notification?
14. The working group had mixed thoughts on the use of newspaper advertisements as a means of supplementing neighbour notification and for targeting those not eligible for neighbour notification but with an interest in development proposals in the area. It was agreed that it should still be the case that bad neighbour applications and contrary to development plan applications should be advertised in a newspaper circulating in the locality because they could potentially have an impact beyond the "neighbour notification zone". The potential for combined notification or advertisement where for example an applicant applies for planning permission and is also required to apply for listed building consent should also be considered. There was consensus that simplifying the advertisement procedures would be beneficial and resource saving but the extent to which this is achievable is recognised.
15. The working group had mixed thoughts on the use of site notices. While they are an effective means of notifying people in the vicinity of the site, they are ineffective in notifying owners/ occupiers/lessees who live outside the area. Vandalism and weather damage is also possible. The use of electronic means and posters in communal shops and public buildings were also supported. Action: Identify how effective these methods are in practice in England.
What are the implications for costs and staff resources for planning?
16. The Working Group consider that there will be cost and resource implications for planning authorities, and consider that Arup's findings represent an under estimate. The main cost will be setting up the new system and organisational change. However, if owners/occupier/lessees don't have to be individually named, then the estimated cost carried out by research by City of Edinburgh and Glasgow City Council would be significantly reduced. While development control neighbour notification can be recovered by planning application fees, the development planning neighbour notification would have to be met out of the planning authority's individual budgets. Neighbour notification would not have to be carried out by planners, but could be carried out by a dedicated team of administrative/ technical staff, potentially under the supervision of professional staff. The same staff could carry out neighbour notification for development plans and for planning applications. Action: To be considered further through resources for Planning Working Group.
Desirability to transfer responsibility to planning authorities for the notification of owners of land and tenants of any agricultural land?
17. The working group consider this responsibility should remain with the applicant. Group members discovered an anomaly in the existing system regarding the notification of owners within the application site. Action: Ascertain if English Planning Authorities are responsible for notification of owners of land and tenants of any agricultural land, and if so, how it operates.
What advice and guidance will be needed for planning authorities, applicants and neighbours when the new system of NN is introduced?
18. In addition to the preparation of secondary legislation, a range of guidance and advice will be required. The guidance and advice should take into account the English experience. To date, the working group have identified a need for guidance or advice on a number of areas. While not appropriate for legislation, it might be helpful for guidance and/or advice to include illustrated examples of "site specific" and "significant" sites for development plans. While not appropriate to legislate for, applicants should be encouraged on a non-mandatory basis to provide a schedule of ownership of land and neighbouring land if known to speed up the process. Action: Other areas requiring guidance and/or advice requested from working group members.
Study visit to English planning authorities.
19. It was proposed that a day should be set aside for visits to English planning authorities in the North East. Availability for dates in late April will be canvassed. Members of the group are invited to put forward any additional items for the agenda.
Any Other Business
20. Members of the group were invited to provide any further comments they had on the paper to the Executive. Comments by Friday 24 th March would be helpful . Subject to these comments and actions arising from the study visit, the working group paper will be finalised and will provide a starting point for the production of Regulations and a potential Planning Advice Note ( PAN) on the new procedures for neighbour notification.
Scottish Executive
March 2006