Planning performance and fees: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

1.1 Consultation on Planning Performance and Fees - 2019

1.1.1 Optimal Economics has been appointed by the Scottish Government - Local Government and Communities Directorate - Planning and Architecture Division (PAD) to undertake an analysis of the responses to the public consultation on Planning Performance and Fees.

1.1.2 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 includes provisions to extend the range of services which authorities can charge for, the ability to waive or reduce fees and for Scottish Ministers to charge for delivering their planning functions. In relation to performance, the Act places annual reporting by planning authorities onto a statutory basis and introduced the role of the National Planning Improvement Co-ordinator (NPIC). To ensure any changes made to measuring performance and the structure of fees within the planning system are the correct changes, the Scottish Government published a consultation to gather views.

1.1.3 The aim of the consultation was to obtain the views and opinions of stakeholders on a new approach to how the performance of planning authorities is measured, the role of the NPIC and the new structure for the planning fee regime along with the introduction of additional services which can be charged for and the ability to waive or reduce planning fees in certain circumstances.

1.1.4 The consultation was broadly divided into two parts. The first part covers planning performance and the role and responsibilities of the NPIC through a combination of quantitative and qualitative questions. The second part of the consultation was focused on fees and was split into four main sections:

• Planning fees: For 23 categories of development, questions were posed regarding the level of fee and method for calculating the fee.
• Other Fees: For a further six types of fees (e.g. conservation areas), questions were posed regarding the level of fee and method for calculating the fee.
• Discretionary charging: For eleven categories of services, questions were posed regarding whether the service should be charged for and the reasons to support the answer.
• Other issues: a number of other issues were covered regarding fees.

1.2 There was a further section at the end of the consultation with questions on impact assessments.

1.2 Methodology

1.2.1 The approach to the analysis is shown in the Figure below.

1.2.2 The first stage of the review was to validate the responses to determine that they are relevant to planning performance and fees; whether there were any duplicate responses and whether there were any campaign responses. There were a number of responses which were aligned with a particular organisation or replicated part of another organisation's response, but as other aspects of the submission were different, they are not being treated as campaign responses.

1.2.3 The validation stage also developed a typology to reflect the respondent and their relationship to the planning system and its processes (paragraph 1.3.2 below).

1.2.4 Stage 2 was focused on establishing an appropriate framework for the analysis. The consultation combined quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and while the quantitative responses provided a good overview of opinion, it was the qualitative comments that provided a far greater depth of response.

1.2.5 A coding framework was established of the main themes arising from the open-ended questions. The framework was kept under continuous review to ensure it was fit-for-purpose and that the responses mapped effectively on to it. After the initial themes were identified, a more detailed coding of each main theme was undertaken to allow responses to be grouped to reflect key issues/views by the typology developed in Stage 1.

1.2.6 Stage 3 was the analysis of all questions and reporting of results which took account of client feedback at all stages of the reporting process.

1.2.7 Almost all "closed" questions asked for a yes/no answer and the analysis presents the number of responses by group providing yes/no and those who did not answer the question. The overall proportion of responses answering yes/no is also provided.

1.2.8 All responses to the "open" questions have been given an equal weighting, allowing every idea presented to be considered equally. Where possible we have used a number of simple bands to provide an indication of the frequency of an idea, although it is noted that this treats the response from an individual with the same weight as the response from a professional body which may have many members. Nevertheless, the following bands have been used:

• Few: up to 3 responses.
• Several: 4 to 10 responses.
• Many: over 10 responses.

1.3 Overview of Responses

1.3.1 At the close of the consultation period (14^th February 2020) there were 84 responses, although a further 25 had been submitted to PAD in an alternative format. Where possible, these additional responses were input into Citizen Space taking the total number of responses to 109.

1.3.2 The respondents were categorised into the following four major groups:

• Business: Respondents who are concerned with the system from the perspective of its impact and influence on conducting business, but not necessarily regular applicants. These include business bodies like chambers and federations, self-employed, financial institutions, as well as retailers, and some business sectors like energy.
• Civil Society: Respondents who are concerned with the system from a non-developer or planner perspective. For instance, civic groups and community councils, individuals, charities and community developers.
• Development Industry: Respondents who are concerned with the system primarily from a development and land value perspective. These included landowners, investors, development surveyors, developers, housing associations and housebuilders
• Policy and Planning: Respondents who are concerned with the system from the perspective of operators or shapers of the planning system, its plans and policies. For instance, local authorities (including National Park Authorities and Strategic Development Planning Authorities), national government bodies and key agencies.

1.3.3 The table below shows the distribution of respondents by major group with Appendix A providing a list of respondents by group.