Planning system - promotion and use of mediation - draft guidance: consultation analysis

5. Impact Assessments

5.1 The final section of the consultation sought views on impact assessments undertaken for the draft guidance. These included a partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment, and partial Equalities Impact Assessment (combining Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment).

5.2 Question 10 sought views on the content of these partial assessments.

Q10. Please give us any views you have on the content of these partial assessments.

5.3 A total of 17 respondents provided comment at Question 10, including 11 organisation respondents and six individuals. The 11 organisation respondents included four public sector, four private sector and a third sector respondent, and two planning/other professionals.

5.4 In relation to the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA), the following points were raised.

• There were concerns regarding the cost estimates set out in the BRIA, and the extent to which these present a realistic account of the likely impact of proposals. Some suggested that mediator costs may be over-estimated, but others noted that cost estimates exclude significant elements such as staff time input (and are therefore likely to underestimate overall costs).
• Specific concerns were raised regarding estimates of additional costs for planning authorities, including that estimated costs do not include time input, that no cost estimate is given regarding expected individual additional costs for local authorities, and that there is no quantification of any potential savings (for example to the cost of development plan production if the number of unresolved issues is reduced).
• It was suggested that the BRIA underestimates the number and size of mediation events that are likely to be required as part of the local development plan preparation process. This was with specific reference to the number and complexity of issues often raised at this stage, and the potential diversity of stakeholders involved.
• There was a perceived need for further research to improve the evidence base related to costs, and the proportion of PACs where mediation may be required. It was also suggested that benchmarking should be undertaken with comparable policy areas or systems where mediation is used.
• There was concern that the BRIA does not include any assessment of costs for local communities.
• It was suggested that the BRIA should be extended to include the role of guidance on mediation beyond the PAC stage, including other parts of the development management process.
• Some questioned the claim that mediation costs are unlikely to be sufficient to be a deciding factor in whether a developer pursues a project. In particular, it was suggested that this may be the case for regeneration projects.

5.5 In relation to the Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA), the following points were raised.

• It was suggested that guidance should highlight the need to adopt different mediation approaches to take account of the requirements of all those who wish to engage with the process. This included reference to the needs of those with protected characteristics such as ethnicity and language use, age and disability. Specific reference was made to the Scottish Government’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• Some questioned the assumption that use of mediation will result in better inclusion of children and young persons in the planning system.
• It was suggested that, dependent on funding arrangements, use of formal mediation could worsen existing inequalities in the planning system. This included concerns regarding the extent to which access to mediators is likely to vary across rural locations, for example.

5.6 Question 11 asked respondents to provide any information sources that may assist in finalising the impact assessments.

Q11. Do you have or can you direct us to any information that would assist in finalising these assessments?

5.7 A total of nine respondents provided comment at Question 11, including five organisation respondents and four individuals. The five organisation respondents included two private sector, a public sector and a third sector respondent, and a planning/other professional.

5.8 Comments on information sources that may assist in finalising the BRIA and EqIA assessments are summarised below.

• Reference was made to the potential value of cross-referencing local statistical datasets, spatial data and business intelligence. This included reference to evidence held by economic development stakeholders and community planning services.
• Reference was also made to data held by third sector organisations such as Living Streets and The Cockburn Association.
• Specific sources cited by respondents were:
• The Ministry of Justice report, Evaluating the use of judicial mediation in Employment Tribunals. https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/evaluating-judicial-mediation-march10.pdf

5.9 Question 12 sought views on the Island Communities Impact, the Fairer Scotland Duty and Strategic Environmental Assessment screening documents, and the conclusion that these do not require full assessments.

Q12. Please give us your views on the Island Communities Impact, the Fairer Scotland Duty and Strategic Environmental Assessment screening documents and our conclusion that full assessments are not required.

5.10 A total of five respondents provided comment at Question 12, including four organisation respondents and one individual. The four organisation respondents included two third sector, a public sector and a private sector respondent.

5.11 In relation to the Island Communities Impact screening document, the following points were raised.

• It was suggested that island communities may see more stakeholder interest in the mediation process, and may therefore be subject to a greater impact on timescales than other areas.
• It was suggested that guidance should recognise potential for development proposals in environmentally sensitive areas to require mediation involving environmental or other professionals.
• It was noted that work may be required to ensure access to digital connectivity required to enable island residents to participate in remote mediation.

5.12 No comments were received specifically in relation to the Fairer Scotland Duty screening document.

5.13 In relation to the Strategic Environmental Assessment screening document, the following point was raised.

• It was suggested that full Strategic Environmental Assessments should be required if requested by local communities or individuals with good grounds for concern.

5.14 The final consultation question sought views on any relevant information sources, if respondents feel that full Island Communities Impact, Fairer Scotland Duty and/or Strategic Environmental assessments are required.

Q13. If you consider that full assessments are required, please suggest any information sources that could help inform these assessments?

5.15 Two respondents answered Question 13, a planning authority and a third sector respondent. Neither respondent referred to specific information sources that could help inform the assessments.