7 KEY POINTS AND EMERGING THEMES
7.1 Comments made by consultation respondents in relation to proposed regulations (as a whole and at a detailed level) have varied considerably in content and force. Broad support is evident for most elements of the proposed regulations, notwithstanding some significant concerns raised.
General Themes
7.2 It is notable that over and above the specific - often practical - points raised in relation to each of the three sets of regulations, a number of key themes have emerged.
- The independence and impartiality of decisions was the most significant theme for some respondents. This was primarily raised in relation to local review regulations, specifically the extent to which the local review body can be independent of initial delegated decisions. Indeed it is fair to say for many that this was by far the most significant concern raised, with concerns expressed around the potential for this to have a negative impact on confidence in the system.
- Consistency of approach to delegation, local review and appeal was also a key issue for many. There was some difference of opinion on the extent to which regulations should allow local flexibility in approach - for example businesses/developers were much more likely to prefer a very standardised approach, while planning authorities and others often highlighted the need to tailor regulations to local circumstances. However for those either side of this argument, consistency in the application and interpretation of regulations was a significant consideration. This is reflected in requests for Government guidance on many aspects of regulations (delegation criteria, operation of local review bodies, etc).
- Transparency and fairness were the other key themes emerging through consultation responses. There was some link here with the independence of local review, for example through suggestions to maximise transparency as a means of demonstrating independence of the system. The importance of these themes was also reflected more widely for example in suggestions that clear delegation criteria and reasons for key decisions in the appeal process are required. There was a common view that maximum transparency could maintain confidence in the system, particularly given concerns around independence and consistency of approach.
Schemes of Delegation
7.3 Views expressed in relation to regulations on schemes of delegation were broadly positive. Most agreed with the broad scope as proposed in the consultation document, although specific suggested modifications to criteria for delegation were relatively common.
7.4 In terms of the practical implementation of schemes, respondents were divided on the extent to which local consultation should be required - planning authorities tended to be opposed to consultation on schemes of delegation.
7.5 Most broadly agreed with the proposed approach to adopting schemes, although again a number of specific issues and suggestions were raised.
7.6 Key points relating specifically to schemes of delegation:
- Themes of consistency and transparency were highlighted in relation to the criteria for delegation proposed in regulations. Specifically, concerns were raised around the definition of key terms such as "significant body of objection" and "significantly contrary to the Development Plan". There was a perceived need for further guidance to aid interpretation, although some difference of opinion was evident around how such guidance could best resolve any lack of clarity around these terms.
- Also relating to the scope of delegation, some raised concerns around linking delegation to the Planning Hierarchy. It was suggested that cases of up to 100 units were too significant for delegation, and that criteria should be based on the likely local impact of a development more than its place in the Hierarchy.
- Many suggested that criteria for delegation should be refined to permit delegated refusal of applications which are contrary to Development Plan policies. It was noted that excluding such cases would result in less delegation for some planning authorities.
- Although views were divided on the requirement for local consultation on schemes, there was a fairly common suggestion that this could at least be recommended as good practice.
Local Review
7.7 In relation to local review, respondents were somewhat divided on the extent to which third party comment should be invited. Most felt this should be permitted in controlled circumstances, specifically where appellants introduce new material or raise new issues.
7.8 Respondents were broadly in favour of the proposed local review body size, although it was suggested that regulations should permit greater flexibility for planning authorities to set this. Review timescales were also broadly supported, although again some suggested some degree of modification.
7.9 Key points were:
- The independence and expertise/experience of local review bodies was the primary concern in relation to local review regulations. Some objected strongly to the principle of local review bodies, but others focused more on suggesting specific provisions to address these concerns - for example appropriate training and support to review bodies.
- It was suggested that reducing the timescale for requesting a review carried a significant risk of increasing the volume of reviews requested. Some felt that available resources would be insufficient to process any such increase, and the resultant backlog of cases could damage confidence in the system.
- The timescale for completing a review was also felt by some to be insufficient, particularly in more complex cases. Again there were concerns that confidence in the system could be damaged if review bodies failed to meet timescales in a substantial number of cases.
- There was a common view that additional third party comment should be permitted at review where appellants introduce new material - transparency and fairness were key themes here.
Planning Appeals
7.10 Views were again divided on the invitation of third party comment at planning appeal, but most felt this was warranted in specific cases (eg where new material or new issues are raised).
7.11 There was general agreement with proposals for Ministers to determine the method of examination, although safeguards were suggested to demonstrate that appellant and planning authorities preferences are considered.
7.12 Most felt that the overall approach to appeals was more proportionate although again some suggested modification or raised issues.
7.13 Key points were:
- On third party comment, as was evident in relation to local review, there was a common view that additional comment should be permitted where appellants introduce new material. Again transparency and fairness were key themes.
- Transparency and consistency were also key issues raised around Ministers determining the method of examination. Most agreed with Ministers making the final decision, but stressed the need to take full account of the view of all parties and for clear reasons to be given for the final decision. Nevertheless, a minority clearly felt that the right to be heard was significant to appellants and should not be removed.
- Significant concerns were raised around the potential impact of front loading the appeal system, specifically that applicants will front load initial applications with potentially irrelevant detail. The likely resource implications for developers and planning officers was highlighted.
- Comments in relation to reduced planning appeal timescales reflected concerns around local review, that a potentially significant increase in the volume of appeals was likely.