EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The consultation paper and the draft Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations (the DMR) proposed changes to the planning system that would: make the processes around planning applications more proportionate and responsive to different types of development proposal; improve efficiency in determining applications and improve public involvement in the consideration of proposals requiring planning permission.
The paper also consulted on the draft development order covering the control of increase in gross floor space from mezzanine floors.
The consultation, which was launched in January 2008 with responses due by 2 April 2008, received 116 responses from a wide range of stakeholder organisations and individuals.
Main Findings
Overall respondents were in favour of the proposals set out in the consultation paper but a number of comments suggested that the proposed process was complicated and that specific proposals for certain categories of developments may lead to delays.
Respondents were, on the whole, in favour of the proposals for enhanced scrutiny although there were concerns over the minimum statutory requirements for pre-application consultation. The majority of respondents in the "Businesses and Developers" category were either not in favour of the proposed minimum statutory requirements, or offered further comments. For example, the proposed mandatory specification of a public meeting was not always felt to be appropriate. Also, a key theme to emerge was the prospect of possible delays to the process arising from the administrative arrangements required to convene a full council meeting in order to ratify, or refuse, a planning application considered by a local authority committee at a statutory pre-determination hearing.
Respondents were generally in favour of the proposals for processing agreements. In particular there was clear majority support for the view that processing agreements should be in place before submission of the application, although there were differences of opinion about specific timing, and for the suggested components of a processing agreement, albeit that issues of complexity were also raised. Some respondents emphasised the need for simplicity and the need to avoid processing agreements becoming another layer of bureaucracy.
Respondents were generally supportive of the proposed approach to Planning Permission in Principle ( PPP) and approval of matters specified in conditions. Respondents in the "Planning and National Park Authorities and Joint Plan Teams" category supported the proposed approach although opinion was narrowly split amongst those in the "Businesses and Developers" category. Those respondents who gave straightforward agreement referred to the greater clarity of position.
The proposals put forward in relation to the content of applications and validation appeared to be a source of concern amongst respondents. For example, some respondents from the "Planning and National Park Authorities and Joint Plan Teams" felt there needed to be more guidance on the content of applications and supporting information. Some respondents in the "Businesses and Developers" category felt that in terms of the requirements on the content of applications being sufficiently clear to allow validation to be a relatively straightforward administrative check, that more clarity was required e.g. more guidance, standard application forms and no stopping the processing clock.
With design and access statements it was noted that in relation to the range of applications to be accompanied by a design and access statement 'Option 2', which sought to require the use of design and access statements for national and major developments and design statements for developments proposed in sensitive areas, was the preferred choice. Some felt that in order to ensure a thorough and robust assessment of the design and access statement adequate training would need to be provided.
Respondents were generally in favour of the proposals being put forward in relation to neighbour notification and publicity for applications. One of the themes to emerge in relation to the proposals on service of notice to neighbours was the issue of the administrative and other costs of neighbour notification incurred by planning authorities. It was felt that clarification/guidance on the proposed definition of neighbouring land would be required.
In relation to the lists of applications the majority of respondents were generally in favour of the Scottish Government's proposals for the public availability of the list. However, there were mixed views about the advertisement of the availability of the list in a local newspaper on a monthly basis e.g. advertising monthly was not enough and scepticism that adverts were not an effective method.
There were mixed views on the list of statutory consultees and criteria for consultation. The majority of respondents suggested specific changes for either enhanced or decreased criteria for existing consultees, while others sought further clarification about existing criteria.
The majority of respondents were in favour of the proposals relating to time periods for decisions. In terms of extending the statutory period for determining an application and major development to 4 months, some respondents in the "Businesses and Developers" category were concerned this could lead to delays. In contrast, a number of respondents in the "Planning and National Park Authorities and Joint Plan Teams" category felt that 4 months would not be enough.
Respondents were generally supportive of the proposals relating to decision notices, reports of handling and registers. There was majority support for the view that the level of information to be provided in the decision notice was appropriate. Overall there was a broad range of opinion as to the preferred methods for informing those who made representations about planning decisions.
While there was majority support for the view that the information to be contained in the report of handling was appropriate, one concern - particularly from respondents in the "Businesses and Developers" category - was that increasing the level of information required could lead to delays in the decision making process. In addition, there was the potential for complexity to arise from the DMR with a risk of legal challenge on the basis of non-compliance. There was majority support for the view that existing Committee reports, where available, could be easily adapted to incorporate the proposed statutory requirements. Although a theme which emerged from some respondents was their concern over the potential administrative burden of these proposals.
Various responses were put forward suggesting alternative names for 'bad neighbour development'. There were a number of suggestions for deletions or additions to the list of 'bad neighbour developments' while a significant number of respondents had comments on specific entries, or aspects, of the list of developments.
The details of the proposals covering the control of increase in gross floorspace (mezzanine floors) received general support from respondents. However several representatives from the retail sector objected to the principle of the proposed new controls. Most respondents felt that new controls on increases in internal floorspace should only cover retail developments. A majority of responses supported the proposal to have different approaches depending on whether or not increases to the floorspace had already taken place. However, it was felt by some that the proposals were complicated and required more clarity. There was also clear support for the set limit of operators being able to increase the internal floorspace of their building to be by no more than 200 sqm so as to help protect town centres. In addition, there was clear support for the decision to use square metres rather than a percentage
in defining proposals of this nature requiring planning permission. Transitional arrangements regarding the introduction of controls were also raised by a number of respondents from various sectors.
Finally, more general comments to emerge reflected themes such as the administrative burden, worries about delays in the process and resource implications. In addition, there were concerns about the perceived complexity of the DMR and any associated delays that may result. It was also suggested that there should be appropriate publicity arrangements, or dissemination of information, surrounding the proposed changes so that the relevant societal groups were aware of them.
The consultation paper also contained a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment ( RIA) and Equality Impact Assessment ( EqIA). Generally comments on the RIA reflected concerns that the provisions would potentially lead to additional costs and delay with additional support needed for training and guidance. The main issue raised as part of the EqIA arose out of the concern from faith groups about the proposal to define places of worship as 'bad neighbour developments'.