ANNEX F
FULL LIST OF CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Q1: Do you agree with the proposed categories of development to which the requirements for pre-application consultation apply?
Q2: Do you have any comments on the thresholds in Schedule 1 of the DMR on pre-application consultation?
Q3: Is the information required in a pre-application screening notice sufficient?
Q4: Is 21 days a reasonable period for authorities to respond to a pre-application screening notice in all circumstances?
Q5: Do you agree with the proposed content of the proposal of application notice?
Q6: Are the requirements to notify community councils and neighbours of the proposal of application notice sufficient or should others be notified at this stage as a statutory minimum?
Q7: Do you agree with the minimum statutory requirements for pre-application consultation in regulation 8?
Q8: Do you agree with the requirements on the content of pre-application reports?
Q9: Do you support the classes of development which will be subject to pre-determination hearings?
Q10: Should the opportunity to be heard at a pre-determination hearing be extended to other parties beyond those who made representations?
Q11: What arrangements would need to be made to convene full councils to make these decisions?
Q12: Do you support the view that processing agreements should be in place before submission of the application?
Q13: Do you agree that where there is to be a processing agreement that it should be entered into not later than 28 days after validation?
Q14: Do you agree with the suggested components of a processing agreement?
Q15: Do you agree that the sole parties signing the processing agreement should be the planning authority and the applicant, or do you think there is scope for statutory consultees to also sign the agreement?
Q16: Do you support the proposed approach to Planning Permission in Principle and approval of matters specified in conditions?
Q17: Do respondents consider the approach to the content of planning applications to be appropriate or are any of the other options in paragraph 5.3 preferable?
Q18: What other measures could help to ensure that applications are supported by adequate information at the start of the planning process whilst still encouraging efficiency in the development management system?
Q19 Do respondents consider that the draft regulations on the content of applications for Planning Permission in Principle are pitched at an appropriate level of information?
Q20: Do respondents consider that the requirements on content of applications are sufficiently clear to allow validation to be a relatively straightforward administrative check?
Q21: Do you have a view on the two options on the range of applications to be accompanied by a design and/or access statement?
Q22: In addition to those considered in the options, in what circumstances might statements consider only one element - design or access?
Q23 How can access panels be used most effectively in considering design and access?
Q24: Do you consider that there is sufficient clarity in the regulations to allow for effective and timeous validation of applications where design and/or access statements are required?
Q25: What role can local authority access officers play in assessing the access element of statements?
Q26: What information do planning authorities and communities need to ensure a thorough and robust assessment of the design and access statement?
Q27: Do you consider the proposals on service of notice to neighbours to be appropriate?
Q28: Do you agree that, in order to minimise costs and potential delay, a single notice sent to the address of the neighbouring land is sufficient for these purposes?
Q29: Is the proposed approach to keeping people informed of PPP and approval of matters specified in conditions appropriate?
Q30: Do you support the proposed definition of neighbouring land?
Q31: Do you consider the proposals concerning the use of site notices and of local advertisements to be appropriate?
Q32: Do respondents support the proposed requirements on notifying owners and agricultural tenants and the placing of local advertisements in this regard?
Q33: Are you content with the Scottish Government's proposals for the public availability of the list?
Q34: Is the advertisement of the availability of the list in a local newspaper on a monthly basis appropriate?
Q35: Do respondents have any views on the list of statutory consultees and the criteria for consultation?
Q36: Do respondents consider it appropriate to extend the statutory period for determining an application for national and major development to 4 months?
Q37: Is the level of information to be provided in the decision notice appropriate?
Q38: How should planning authorities best manage the potential burden of ensuring those who made representations are advised of the decision?
Q39: Is the information to be contained in the report of handling appropriate in order to provide a robust summary of how the application has been dealt with and the reasons behind the planning authority's decision?
Q40: Can existing Committee reports, where available, be easily adapted to incorporate the proposed statutory requirements in paragraph 4 of Schedule 4?
Q41: What might be an appropriate alternative name for "bad neighbour development"?
Q42: Do you support the proposed additions and deletions to the list of "bad neighbour developments" and do you have other suggestions?
Q43: Are there any others uses which you consider should also be subject to controls on increases in gross floorspace ?
Q44: Do you support our proposal to have different approaches depending on whether other increases in the internal floorspace have taken place?
Q45: Do you consider that 200 square metres is an appropriate level to help achieve the objectives of helping protect town centres?
Q46: For the purpose of controlling internal floorspace, do you support the decision to use amounts in square metres rather than a percentage?
Q47: Are there any potential impacts on business or voluntary sectors that we should be aware of in finalising the regulations or the order?
Q48: Are there any potential impacts on particular societal groups that we should be aware of in finalising the regulations or the order?
Q49: Do you have any other comments to make on the draft development management regulations or the mezzanine floors order?