Investing in Planning – A consultation on resourcing Scotland's planning system Summary of responses to the consultation

Summary of Responses - Smarter Working

Proportionality

Question 1: Which assessments might benefit most from improved proportionality?

Responses to Question 1 by respondent category are set out in Table 1.

There were 85 responses to this question.

Some respondents referred to more general areas requiring increased proportionality, such as validation, Environmental Impact Assessments, NPF4’s requirements and consenting processes. Many respondents identified that all examples of assessments mentioned within the consultation may benefit from proportionality. Most noted a cumulative impact of assessments causing time and resource implications for authorities, applicants and communities alike.

Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agent respondents also welcomed the production of a standard format for Environmental Impact Assessment Reports through the Onshore Wind Sector Deal.

While some Planning Authorities indicated they were already seeking to take a proportionate approach to assessments, most noted that the need for assessments should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

A number of assessments were noted by both authorities and applicants as potentially benefitting from a more proportionate approach. Many noted the need for increased proportionality in flood risk assessments, as well as transport, noise, retail impact, socio-economic impact, landscape and visual impact and biodiversity amongst others.

It was emphasised, particularly by some third sector respondents that proportionality particularly for environmental assessments, including biodiversity and drainage assessments, should not come at the cost of reducing environmental protection.

Processing Agreements

Question 2: To what extent do you agree that processing agreements are an effective tool for creating certainty in planning decision making timescales?

Responses to Question 2 by respondent category are set out in Table 2.

91 respondents answered this question with 87 respondents providing comments.

Some respondents were of the view that processing agreements could be a useful tool to project manage an application, however, there were concerns about the time and resource taken to draft agreements, how delivery would be resourced, the adherence to the dates and the buy in of other parties such as statutory and non-statutory consultees.

Some respondents queried the value of processing agreements and were suspicious of the motivations for using them, including reducing communities’ involvement in the planning application process or circumventing statutory timescales.

Of those in support of processing agreements, reasons included providing certainty of timescales and process, including committee timescales, coordinating timescales with both internal and external consultees and the flexibility to amend them if timescales slip for whatever reason.

Question 3: Do you consider that current resourcing issues are impacting on the use of processing agreements?

Responses to Question 3 by respondent category are set out in Table 3.

92 respondents answered this question with 79 respondents providing comments.

Well over half of those of who answered the question, in particular, Planning Authorities and Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents, agreed that current resourcing issues were impacting on the use of processing agreements. Many highlighted that resourcing is affecting many services and not just the use of processing agreements. Some suggested that the additional bureaucracy of processing agreements was an issue, that they are being used to manage performance with limited resources rather than for their original purpose and that they are being affected by resource constraints outwith the council, such as with statutory consultees.

Those who disagreed that resourcing issues were impacting the use of processing agreements stated that in their experience processing agreements were taking account of resourcing issues which is being reflected in the timescales which are being agreed to.

Question 4: Would you be prepared to pay a discretionary fee to enter into a processing agreement?

Responses to Question 4 by respondent category are set out in Table 4.

89 respondents answered this question with 77 respondents providing comments.

There were mixed views, with slightly more respondents supporting the introduction of fees for processing agreements than those who were opposed. Planning authorities were fairly neutral on the issue, with slightly more in the Development, Property and Land Management and Agents category supporting it compared to those who opposed it.

Some of those who selected “no view” thought the question was aimed at applicants rather than themselves and that introducing fees may raise customer expectations.

Those opposing the introduction of charging for entering into a processing agreement considered that authorities should focus on streamlining processes and procedures to reduce timescales, highlighted their lack of legal standing and enforceability, that introducing fees could result in a two-tier system and that the additional income from discretionary fees may not overcome the issues which are affecting the delivery of processing agreements.

Those supporting the introduction of charging for entering into a processing agreement considered that fees should be standard across the country and proportionate to the scale of development. Many respondents who were in support of the introduction of fees agreed on the basis that the fee needs to support delivery of improved performance and agreed timescales.

Certainty

Question 5: What additional actions can we take to improve certainty in the planning process?

Responses to Question 5 by respondent category are set out in Table 5.

There were 106 responses to this question.

Suggestions as to what actions can be taken to improve certainty in the planning process were varied. Across all respondent categories, the importance of good communication and collaboration was noted.

Most Community and Individual respondents suggested improved engagement and openness at a local level would be beneficial not only in improving certainty, but also in improving communities trust in authorities and help them feel involved in the decision making process. Some Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agent respondents echoed the need for better engagement and openness to increase certainty, including through pre-application discussions.

Some respondents suggested elected member training could also play a part in improving certainty, as this may contribute to more consistent and predictable decision making across authorities. Another action noted as having the potential to improve certainty was planning authorities adhering to statutory or other such agreed timescales, with a few respondents suggesting refunds or penalties if timescales are not met.

Validation was a common theme particularly from Planning Authorities and Key Agency and Other Public Sector respondents. Many of them suggested that issues with initial applications lacking necessary supporting information was a contributing factor, and that streamlining and standardising validation processes and creating clear guidance may ensure submission of higher quality applications.

Other suggestions included further investment in digital technology; better collaboration across the sector; a standardised approach to Section 75s; clearer guidance around the interpretation of NPF4, ensuring adequate staffing in planning authorities, elected member training, and the importance of a plan-led approach.

Streamlining

Question 6: Do you have further ideas on opportunities for streamlining, alignment or standardisation?

Responses to Question 6 by respondent category are set out in Table 6.

There were 86 responses to this question.

There was strong support for greater streamlining and standardisation across most stakeholder groups. The most common opportunity highlighted by respondents for streamlining processes centred around Section 75 planning obligations and the opportunity to create efficiencies through standard templates. It was also suggested that standard templates for assessments and conditions should be investigated. It was noted by some respondents that any streamlining and standardisation must not come at the expense of the quality of the planning service, and delivering good place making remains vital.

Within the Development, Property and Land Management and Agents sector, there was a common request for standardising schemes of delegation including thresholds for circumstances where applications should go to committee. That respondent category also suggested that improvements were required in the discharging of conditions and wanted local authorities to be prevented from using different approaches. The common example given for that was when authorities take a different approach to landscape and visual impact assessment.

As noted with the responses to the previous question, validation of applications was a common issue raised by planning authorities. A small number of respondents mentioned that better use of technology could be used to realise efficiencies. Streamlining of consenting processes was also suggested.

Skills

Question 7: Are there any skills actions which you think should be prioritised?

Responses to Question 7 by respondent category are set out in Table 7.

There were 89 responses to this question.

Many respondents across respondent categories, were generally supportive of all the skills actions outlined within the consultation.

Many across the different respondent categories supported prioritising the creation of a planning apprenticeship to increase the number of people entering the sector, and to ensure those that do, have the opportunity to gain sufficient hands on skills and experience. The lack of undergraduate planning based degrees currently available in Scotland was also highlighted as an issue, and funding for higher education was an issue raised throughout.

Many respondents emphasised the need to encourage more people to join the planning profession, which it was suggested may be achieved through the continuation of bursaries, increased involvement in careers fairs, and ensuring salaries, particularly in the public sector, remain competitive and attractive. Upskilling of existing staff was also a key issue highlighted by many respondents, including the need for training for elected members.

Question 8: Are there any skills actions not identified which you think would make a significant impact?

Responses to Question 8 by respondent category are set out in Table 8.

There were 69 responses to this question.

Many respondents echoed their support for skills actions that had already been outlined within the consultation. Upskilling local authority staff was a theme which emerged across respondent categories, both in specialisms, such as landscape, biodiversity and heritage, as well as non-technical and soft skills, such as project management, leadership, negotiation and conflict resolution. Others suggested further work could be done to attract and facilitate the movement of professionals from other built environment professions into the planning sector.

The need to promote planning as a career, both to school and university leavers and to those currently working in other related industries, was emphasised throughout.

Planning Hub

Question 9: Do you think that the concept of a ‘planning hub’, modelled on the Building Standards Hub would support authorities and deliver improvement in the system?

Responses to Question 9 by respondent category are set out in Table 9.

102 respondents answered this question with 112 respondents providing comments.

There was strong support for the principle of introducing a Hub, but recognition from the majority that there are a number of practical issues to overcome, including function and role, implementation, impartiality, conflict of interest and dealing with local flexibility. Many respondents asked for further details.

Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agent and Key Agency and Other Public Sector respondents were unanimous in their support for a Hub, with planning authorities having more mixed views.

A few respondents recognised pressures outwith local authorities affecting the performance of the planning system and suggested that wider interests including key agencies and statutory consultees could be included as they are facing similar issues.

Respondents in favour of the Hub noted some of the advantages in the approach, including, providing better financial value than authorities individually contracting agency or consultant staff, and how a Hub could assist smaller authorities who may be likely to have a smaller pool of technical staff in house.

Concerns of respondents centred around the need for further information on how the Hub would work in practice. Some were concerned that if a Hub wasn’t properly resourced it could be counterproductive and add further delay with a few stakeholders considering that it would create an additional layer of process or consultation. Others mentioned concerns about centralisation of decision making and questioned the level of demand. There was also concern about the available pipeline of staff and that a Hub could further exacerbate skills and staff shortages within authorities, further diluting in house expertise and longer term resilience.

The need to ensure a hub allowed for local issues and differences was frequently mentioned from stakeholders from all viewpoints with flexibility being cited as a key component in order to be consistent with the place agenda.

There was general recognition that the Building Standards Hub was not directly comparable due to the different systems and circumstances.

Question 10: Are there other ways a Hub could add value and provide support in the short and longer term?

Responses to Question 10 by respondent category are set out in Table 10.

There were 72 responses to this question.

This question provided a mix of responses, with some respondents restating some of the benefits and concerns about the principle of the Hub that were raised in response to question 9. Others mentioned a variety of priority topics for the Hub to focus on and the need for the provision of specialist staff. A few mentioned the opportunity to benchmark, sharing knowledge particularly in areas of new and emerging technology, whilst others felt there was a need for a Hub to host a register of specialist skills.

Whilst suggestions were very wide ranging, a central training role was mentioned by a number of respondents.

A few respondents felt that development management should not be the sole focus and there could be a role for the Hub in local development plans, enforcement and local place plans. A few respondents suggested specific parts of the system for the Hub to target including validation, standardisation through the provision of templates, and dispensing pre-commencement conditions.

A few respondents considered that a Hub should also provide support for agencies and one suggestion was for the hub to provide key stakeholder contacts to better support facilitation, mediation and collaboration.

Question 11: Which of the options do you think is most suitable, and why?

Responses to Question 11 by respondent category are set out in Table 11.

91 respondents answered this question with 69 respondents providing comments.

Respondent views on this question were mixed across and within stakeholder categories. The main area of consideration was around impartiality and managing potential conflicts of interest. Some respondents felt it premature to comment on this question until the scope of the Hub is confirmed. A number of respondents saw a connection between the work of the Improvement Service and the Hub and suggested that as a potential option.

Question 12: How do you think a Planning Hub could be resourced?

Responses to Question 12 by respondent category are set out in Table 12.

There were 83 responses to this question.

Around a third of respondents considered that the Hub should be funded through planning fees, with some specifically mentioning that it should be funded within existing fees and others mentioning the need to increase fees to provide for the Hub. A common request was for any increase in fees to be matched by performance improvements.

Around a quarter of respondents considered that a Hub should be centrally funded by Scottish Government with some stating that that they considered the Hub to be an important action that would contribute to a number of wider Scottish Government priorities and therefore it should be a central budgetary priority.

Others had mixed views and weighed up different approaches with several respondents noting that they were unable to consider funding until the function and role of the Hub is finalised.

There were very mixed views from authorities with some respondents considering a Hub should be centrally funded and others unsure but clear that it is not for authorities to fund. A number of authorities mentioned a pay per use approach but there were mixed views on whether that would work with the differences in authority circumstances and the likely difference in levels of demand.