Planning performance and fees: consultation analysis

6. Discretionary Charging

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 contained provisions which enable the extension of the scope of services planning authorities can charge for in carrying out their functions.

6.2 Discretionary Charging

6.2.1 The consultation sets out some examples of services for which authorities may wish to charge e.g. pre-application discussions. Government does not intend to make it compulsory for authorities to charge for delivering these services but leave it up to their discretion.

Q35. Do you think that the range of services which an authority can charge for should be set out?

6.2.2 The consultation proposed that it should be left to the discretion of authorities to charge for delivering these services. The table below shows respondents views on whether the range of services which an authority is allowed to charge for should be set out. There was considerable support (87%) for setting out the range of services from all groups.

Do you think we should set out the range of services which an authority is allowed to charge for?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	15	1	13
Civil Society	12	3	13
Development Industry	7	1	4
Policy and Planning	25	4	11
Total	59	9	41
% of Respondents Answering Question	87	13

6.2.3 There were 67 comments across a range of themes which are described below in descending order of comments received. Some responses fall across more than one theme, for example, a few respondents would like the range of services set out nationally for transparency and consistency but would like local discretion in the actual fees charged. There are also contradictory suggestions within groups, including policy and planning with some respondents looking for transparency and consistency and others seeking local discretion over which services should be subject to a charge.

Transparency and Clarity

• Business: several respondents would like to see the services set out to ensure transparency and provide certainty but would like to see a strict list of which discretionary charges may be considered.
• Civil Society: several respondents suggested services should be set out to ensure transparency in the cost of access to services. It would help to clarify, for planning authorities and service users, which services are subject to a charge.
• Development Industry: several respondents would like uncertainty removed over the lawfulness of charges being used already and would like to see clarity in how fees correlate with planning effort incurred.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents supported clarity for applicants to reduce uncertainty and stakeholders to be given confidence through improved transparency in the Planning System. Policy and planning respondents would welcome clear advice and guidance from Government.

Consistency

• Business: several respondents would like an end to the significant disparity of charges and services between authorities and would like to see consistency with a national standard for charging for services.
• Civil Society: several respondents would like to see standardisation across local authorities to avoid hidden costs. It might be of value to suggest the level of charges that may be exercised by authorities to avoid disparities.
• Development Industry: a respondent would like a consistent approach across authorities through identifying what services are chargeable.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents would like national consistency and an end to disparity in non-statutory discretionary charging. Policy and planning would also like to see the level of response that an applicant can expect to receive set nationally.

Local Authority Discretion

• Civil Society: a respondent felt it should be a matter for the planning authority and they should be answerable to their electorate.
• Development Industry: a respondent felt there should be an appropriate spectrum of charges which may vary between local authorities depending on the level of service available.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents felt there should be flexibility based on local circumstances and demand. It should be left to individual local authorities to determine which services are charged for and how much they cost.

Other Observations

• Business and civil society: a few respondents would recommend that charging for services should be regulated.
• Development Industry: a few respondents supported, in principle, the payment for discretionary services where it assisted the core planning process.
• Policy and Planning: a respondent highlighted that it is important to ensure that the list of services is kept under review.

6.3 Pre-application Discussions

6.3.1 Planning authorities are encouraged to enter into pre-application discussions with prospective applicants. These discussions can help to provide certainty to applicants regarding the information required to be submitted with their application and can help ensure applications are effectively and efficiently processed.

6.3.2 The consultation highlights that some authorities already charge for entering into pre-application discussions and others are investigating the potential of introducing this practice. A selection of existing authority fees was presented for comparison to show the wide range of fees currently charged.

Q36. How should the fees for pre-application discussions be set?

6.3.3 There were 69 comments on how the fees for pre-application discussions should be set across a range of themes which are described below with the themes presented in descending order of comments received.

Based on Level of Service & Nature of Development

• Business: several recommend that any fees charged for pre-application discussions are based on the service level provided and related to the scale of development, for example, a few businesses feel small scale home builders should continue to benefit from free or low-cost pre-application advice services. Fees should be set against specified service-level agreements and refunds should be given if these are not met.
• Civil Society: the fees should reflect the scale and complexity of the proposal and the number of consultees that are likely to be involved.
• Development Industry: any pre-application fee should correlate with the planning effort provided to the applicant. Suitable flexibility should be provided to ensure that a flat rate is not simply applied to all types of applications and scales of development. For a few, using pre-application services should be optional if a fee is to be charged.
• Policy and Planning: for many respondents, the fee should reflect the level of service provided. The fees should be commensurate with the scale of the development, if a site visit is required, the number of consultees to consult and the number of meetings required.

Discretion of Local Authority

• Civil Society: a few believe it should be up to the discretion of the individual planning authority. One respondent raised concern about setting a fee without a related standardisation of what is required in pre-application discussions which appears to interfere with the autonomy of individual planning authorities.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents think fees should be set at a local level as the amount of resources dedicated to pre-application discussions will vary depending on the authority's capacity. Planning authorities should be able to set charges that they consider appropriate to ensure that full cost recovery is achieved.

National Approach and Guidance on Fees

• Business: for a few businesses there should be a national rate. One respondent feels if pre-application discussion fees are to be set, they should be done so consistently across the country to ensure one authority is not disadvantaged against another in attracting applications. Standardisation could cover fees, feedback response times and quality of information.
• Civil Society: for one respondent, a minimum level of advice on specific issues should be provided free of charge with hourly fees beyond this. For a few other respondents, charges should be uniform across the country.
• Development Industry: a few respondents would like a reasonable rate to be set nationally, with a maximum fee set down by the Scottish Government.
• Policy and Planning: for several organisations, a national approach and level of service expected should be set in order to create consistency across authorities. Advice regarding a maximum reasonable limit for each category would be beneficial for some respondents who would also like local discretion on the actual fee charge within this limit.

Included in/ Deducted from Planning Fee

• Business and civil society: several businesses believe if a pre-application fee is introduced, the cost for the service should be deductible from the planning application fee, if and when submitted. For a few civil society respondents, deducting the fee from the full fee payable encourage pre-application discussions to take place.
• Development Industry: a few feel the fee should be deducted from any planning application fee. It was also suggested that it should be reimbursed if an application, which reflects the pre-application advice of Officers, is subsequently refused against recommendation or if the statutory timescales for determining planning applications are not met.
• Policy and Planning: for a few respondents, fees for pre-application discussions should be subtracted from the full fee payable on submission of an application, although clarity on the criteria that would apply in such cases would be welcomed.

Pre-application Fees Should Not be Encouraged

• Business: several business respondents state there is no evidence that charging for pre-application discussions and advice leads to quicker or better decisions. Furthermore, fees for these services may reduce dialogue between developers and planning authorities. Efforts for front-loading engagement should be encouraged by the Scottish Government as a means of improving the quality and efficiency of planning applications.
• Civil Society: it was suggested that there should be no charge for charities or small-scale applications by private homeowners. There is also the danger that a fee would detract from the engagement of public authorities with the public and stakeholders.
• Development Industry: one respondent does not agree that fees for pre-application discussions are necessary as they should be covered within the cost of a planning application and pre-applications should be encouraged to smooth the application process.
• Policy and Planning: one respondent highlighted customer feedback is very positive about their availability to engage with applicants at an early stage and they would not seek to adversely affect this.

Based on Percentage of Application Fee

• Business, development industry, policy and planning: the preference of several businesses would be to set a pre-application fee based on a percentage of the application fee with some suggesting the fee be capped at a certain threshold.
• Civil Society: for one respondent it should be based on planning fees.

Fixed or Flat Rate

• Business: one business respondent suggested a fee should be set on an hourly rate for pre-application discussions.
• Development Industry: for a few respondents, it should be a fixed fee based on the nature of the project and level of input required.
• Policy and Planning: for a few respondents, it should be a flat fee to make it simple to calculate, rather than an hourly rate.

Other observations

• Business: feedback from all the key consultees is important to provide clarity for applicants.
• Civil Society: fees presented as examples seem high.
• Development Industry: the relevant agencies should be involved in pre-application discussions to ensure proposed developments meet their current and future requirements.

Q36a. Should the fees for pre-application discussions be subtracted from the full fee payable on submission of an application?

6.3.4 The consultation asked whether fees for pre-application discussions should be subtracted from the full fee payable on submission of an application. The table below shows that a majority (58%) of respondents believe pre-application discussion fees should be subtracted from the full fee payable on submission of an application. While business, civil society and development industry respondents supported the proposal, the majority of policy and planning respondents did not support the proposal.

Should the fees for pre-application discussions be subtracted from the full fee payable on submission of an application?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	17		13
Civil Society	11	7	10
Development Industry	9	1	2
Policy and Planning	3	21	16
Total	40	29	40
% of Respondents Answering Question	58	42

6.3.5 There were 67 comments across a range of themes which are described below. The themes are presented in descending order of comments received.

Should Not be Subtracted as Pre-Application a Separate Exercise

• Civil Society: a few respondents do not agree with the principle as the fee is for the processing of the planning application and the pre-application discussions are a separate exercise.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents do not want the fee subtracted as the pre-applications are a distinct exercise incurring costs and resources. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the applicant will take on board the advice provided, which could result in delays processing the application.

Saves Time at Application Stage and Improves Quality of Submission

• Business, Civil Society, Development Industry: many respondents across these three groups felt that consideration given by the authority to proposed developments during pre-application discussions is likely to reduce the amount of consideration required in the processing of the application. The provision and take-up of pre-application advice should result in better quality applications, thereby easing the work for planning officers and consultees.

Will Encourage Engagement

• Business and policy and planning: for several business respondents, allowing fees for pre-application discussion to be subtracted from the full fee payable on submission of the application will encourage developers to engage in the pre-application process. A policy and planning respondent also felt it would provide an incentive to engage in pre-application discussions.
• Civil Society: for one respondent pre-application discussion should be part of the service that local authorities provide to encourage sustainable local development.
• Development Industry: for a few respondents, the subtraction of the fee would encourage applicants to engage with the pre-application advice service, which will ensure applicants are aware of the key issues and front-load applications with the required information.

Other observations

• Business: the pre-application process is a positive tool for both developers and planning authorities as it provides clarity at the outset on what is required from the applicant. The Scottish Government should set standards of service for the pre-application process including attendance of relevant personnel at meetings.
• Civil Society: The pre-application discussion should be deemed to be part of the whole process and not separated out and the cost of the application should be set to reflect all the costs of dealing with it
• Development Industry: as a performance incentive, fees could be reimbursed or reduced if timescales were not met. Acceptance would be subject to evidence that projects where a pre-application fee was charged simplified the subsequent planning effort.

6.4 Processing Agreements

6.4.1 Processing agreements can be an important tool in setting out the expectations of all parties regarding the processing timescales for determining an application. Processing agreements will rely on effective pre-application discussions and guidance on what information is required to support an application and when it should be submitted.

Q37. Do you think there should be an additional charge for entering a processing agreement to reflect the additional resources required to draft and agree the timescales to be included?

6.4.2 The consultation asked whether there should be an additional charge for entering into a processing agreement to reflect the additional resources required to draft and agree the timescales to be included. The table below sets out respondents' views on an additional charge for entering into a processing agreement. There was limited support for this proposal with 71% of respondents answering the question opposing an additional charge. The only group where there was more support for an additional charge was civil society.

Do you think that there should be an additional charge for entering into a processing agreement to reflect the additional resource required to draft and agree the timescales to be included?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2	13	14
Civil Society	8	6	14
Development Industry	1	9	2
Policy and Planning	8	19	13
Total	19	47	43
% of Respondents Answering Question	29	71

Q37a. Should we set the fee for that (processing agreements) or an upper limit allowing authorities the flexibility to set their fee within clear parameters?

6.4.3 The consultation asked whether the fee should be set for processing agreements or whether authorities should have flexibility to set their fee within clear parameters including an upper limit. There were 59 comments on whether the fee for processing agreements should be set or have an upper limit to allow flexibility. The themes are described below in descending order of comments received.

Fees May Discourage Use

• Business and development industry: several respondents from both business and development industry groups believe introducing an additional charge for entering into a processing agreement would potentially disincentivise their use.
• Civil Society: for one respondent processing agreements are a voluntary element of the processing of an application, as much for planning authorities' convenience as for applicants' and charging a fee may discourage their use and reduce efficiency.
• Policy and Planning: several see processing agreements as a tool that can benefit the handling of an application for both parties and charging for this could discourage the use of a helpful application management tool.

Set Fee

• Business, civil society, policy and planning: for several business respondents, if the Scottish Government were to adopt an additional charge for entering into a processing agreement, consistency across all authorities would be key and a flat rate should be set by Ministers. A few civil society and a few policy and planning respondents would like the fee to be set nationally. This would ensure consistency across authorities.

Local Authority Discretion

• Civil Society: a few respondents would let local authorities set their own fees as the fee should reflect their costs.
• Policy and Planning: for several respondents, authorities should have the discretion to decide whether to charge and the discretion to determine what that charge should be to reflect local circumstances.

Should be Covered by Existing Fees

• Business, civil society: several business respondents and a civil society respondent think that processing agreements should be covered by the fee payable upon submission of a planning application. Hence, it should be included within the procedure leading up to the submission of a planning application.
• Development Industry: one respondent suggested that authorities could offer an applicant a planning application fee tailored to their specific project and they could use the processing agreement negotiations to more accurately calculate the timescales and a customised planning fee for their project. This supports the idea of an enhanced project management service, which is considered under Q43.
• Policy and Planning: a few respondents consider that project management and programming of an application are an integral part of the process and should therefore not levy an additional charge.

Other observations

• Business: for a few respondents, if a local planning authority does not comply with the requirements of the Agreement, there should be a mechanism for the fee to be repaid to the developer.
• Civil Society: one respondent would not like to see a fee set and feels planning is becoming a revenue raising service for the Council rather than a service to the community.
• Development Industry: a few respondents believe if a charge is introduced it should be automatically and fully refundable if, for any reason, the decision time first agreed requires to be extended.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider that the introduction of a fee would be counterproductive and unreasonable. Key agency input during the drafting of processing agreements would assist in their resource allocation.

6.5 Non-material Variations

6.5.1 Applications for planning permission can be varied after submission with the agreement of the planning authority. This includes planning permission in principle.

Q38. Where a non-material variation is required, should an authority be able to charge for each change which is made to per request?

6.5.2 The consultation asked where a non-material variation is required, should an authority be able to charge for each change which is made or per request. The table below sets out respondents' views. None of the options attracted a majority view, but charging 'per request' received the most support from 47% of respondents answering the question. There was limited (15%) support for a charge on a 'per change' basis.

6.5.3 If the charging options (per change and per request) are combined, there is general support (62%) for the introduction of a non-material variation fee. No charge was favoured by 38% or respondents.

Where a non-material variation is required should an authority be able to charge for each change which is made? Or per request?

	No charge	Per change	Per request	Not Answered
Business	13	1	5	11
Civil Society	3	6	7	12
Development Industry	8		3	1
Policy and Planning	3	4	19	14
Total	27	11	34	37
% of Respondents Answering Question	38	15	47

Q38a. Should we set the fee for that (non-material variations) or an upper limit allowing authorities the flexibility to set their fee within clear parameters?

6.5.4 There were 59 comments on whether the fee for non-material variations should be set or have an upper limit to allow flexibility. The themes are described below in descending order of the number of comments received:

Per Request

• Business: several respondents stated that if charges are to be introduced for non-material variations, they should be per request. The fee should be kept to a minimum and linked to a service level agreement. A small fee per request was suggested, such as Section 96A amendments in England (i.e. £25 for householder, £195 for others).
• Civil Society: for a few respondents, a per request charge would make sense, so that developers are encouraged to group small requests together.
• Development Industry: it is suggested that a Planning Authority should be able to charge a nominal sum per request, however the first request should be free. Any changes thereafter should merit a flat fee of £50 per request.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider that on balance the fee should be per request rather than per change.

No Charge

• Business: the majority of businesses responding to the question feel non-material variations should not be charged for by definition. These variations are generally simple, non-contentious changes being clarified for sound reasons and they should not be brought into the charging regime.
• Development Industry: for a few respondents, no charge should be payable for non-material variations on the basis they are non-material and should be dealt with quickly and efficiently.
• Policy and Planning: one respondent would like there to be no charge for non-material variations.

Set Fee

• Business: a few respondents would like a flat rate set by Scottish Ministers.
• Civil Society: for a few, regulations should set this fee, with clear guidelines for authorities.
• Development Industry: for a few respondents there should be a nominal flat fee.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents believe regulations should set the fee to create consistency.

Flexibility Required

• Civil Society and policy and planning: a few civil society respondents and several policy and planning respondents consider authorities should be given the flexibility to set their own fees to reflect local circumstances.

Other observations

• Business: a concern was expressed at the removal of the free second application submission.
• Civil Society: for one respondent a charge per change will encourage the applicant to get it right first time.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider an upper limit should be identified with authorities allowed to set their own fee within that. Each change made should be chargeable to incentivise applicants to, as far as possible, accurately prepare proposals rather than retrospectively make changes at a later stage.

6.6 Monitoring Conditions

6.6.1 The use of conditions can improve the effectiveness of managing development and enhance confidence in the planning system. In some cases, the terms of the condition require monitoring throughout the construction phase or ongoing use of the development. Where this is the case it has been suggested that authorities should be able to levy a charge for undertaking this monitoring.

Q39. Should authorities be able to charge for carrying out monitoring of conditions?

6.6.2 The consultation asked if authorities should be able to charge for carrying out the monitoring of conditions. The table below sets out respondents' views with the majority (64%) supporting the ability of authorities to charge for carrying out the monitoring of conditions. While a majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents who answered the question supported the proposal, the majority of business and development industry respondents opposed the proposal.

Should authorities be able to charge for carrying out the monitoring of conditions?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	4	12	13
Civil Society	14	1	13
Development Industry	1	7	4
Policy and Planning	24	4	12
Total	43	24	42
% of Respondents Answering Question	64	36

Q39a. Should a fee for monitoring be limited to certain types of monitoring requirements?

6.6.3 The consultation asked if a fee for monitoring should be limited to certain types of monitoring requirements. The table below sets out respondents' views with a slight majority (53%) supporting the fee being limited to certain types of monitoring requirements. Of those answering the question, a larger number of respondents in the business, civil society and development industry groups opposed the fee being limited to certain types of monitoring. The overall support for the proposal was driven by the number of respondents from policy and planning.

Should a fee for monitoring be limited to certain types of monitoring requirements?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	5	7	17
Civil Society	7	8	13
Development Industry	1	5	6
Policy and Planning	18	8	14
Total	31	28	50
% of Respondents Answering Question	53	47

Q39b. What should this be limited to?

6.6.4 There were 49 comments on what the fee for monitoring of conditions should be limited to. The themes are described below in descending order of comments received.

Complex Developments/Issues

• Business: one respondent considers this should be limited to significant aspects and not technical breaches.
• Civil Society: for a few respondents it should be limited to larger developments and include fees for monitoring any potentially significant environmental impacts and also any restoration or environmental mitigation/enhancement work that is carried out over the long term.
• Policy and Planning: many consider that there is a case for charging for certain types of monitoring, particularly major developments, EIA, minerals, energy-related and large-scale developments.

External Monitoring

• Business: several respondents note that it is not uncommon for local authorities to charge for monitoring mineral (non-coal) extraction sites. Monitoring is usually contracted out by local authorities and concern has been raised that consultants are undertaking monitoring or requesting monitoring data that is outwith planning controls. It is suggested that it be clarified that monitoring undertaken in accordance with authorisations/permits that fall within the statutory control of other regulatory authorities cannot be charged for by planning authorities.
• Civil Society: for one respondent, monitoring should not be met by public funds but should be undertaken independently.
• Development Industry: one respondent notes that in instances where aspects of a development require to be monitored (e.g. tree protection), costs are incurred appointing an arboriculturist to oversee works on-site. The scope of this is agreed with the Council who receive a report at the end confirming compliance. The professional conduct and associated accreditations of those involved mean that it is in the developer's interest to ensure condition compliance.
• Policy and Planning: a few respondents note that there is a process in place whereby Planning Monitoring Officers are employed at the expense of the developer to monitor development on site through a Section 75 agreement. This has been confined to windfarms and mineral extraction to date.

Other observations

• Business: for one respondent a nominal fee could be acceptable in some circumstances if this leads to an improvement in monitoring standards, whereas several others do not feel it is appropriate for Planning Authorities to charge for carrying out the monitoring of conditions.
• Civil Society: a few respondents suggested there should be no limit as this may hinder flexibility.
• Development Industry: for one respondent, the use of unnecessary monitoring conditions should be discouraged. Where they are absolutely necessary, the planning authority - or other monitoring party - should undertake this work as part of their core function.
• Policy and Planning: a few respondents felt the fee needs to reflect the particular application and the requirement for monitoring so a limit may not be appropriate. Several respondents highlight the importance of planning authorities being properly resourced to monitor conditions and it is noted that it would be helpful for the Scottish Government to provide guidance on the types of circumstances where this approach would be applicable, and the manner in which it should operate.

Q39c. How should the fee be set?

6.6.5 There were 47 comments on how the fee for the monitoring of conditions should be set. The themes are described below in descending order of comments received.

National Flat Rate or Scale

• Business: several respondents consider, in the interests of transparency and to ensure there is a level playing field for industry, the fee should be set at a national level.
• Civil Society: a few respondents consider it appropriate to make the fee proportional to the size of the development or the planned number of visits.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider the fees should be set on a sliding scale depending on the nature and complexity of the planning application up to a maximum fee (from major application down to single house developments).

Full cost recovery

• Civil Society: several civil society, several policy and planning a development industry respondents consider the fee should reflect the authority's actual monitoring costs. If authorities need to incur monitoring fees, then these should be recoverable.

No Fee

• Business: several respondents consider there should be no additional fee for monitoring because, if this is required, the local planning authority is able to secure monitoring costs through appropriate Planning Agreements.
• Civil Society: one respondent considers there should be no fee for charities.
• Policy and Planning: one respondent notes that it is the prerogative of the planning authority to add conditions so it would be holding the developer to ransom if they then charged a fee to monitor these conditions. The resourcing of monitoring planning conditions should be rolled into the resourcing of planning enforcement.

6.7 Discharge of Conditions

6.7.1 It has been suggested that requests to discharge conditions may not receive adequate resource and priority within authorities to ensure these are turned around within reasonable timescales. In England, there are fees associated with the discharge of conditions attached to planning permissions. This is based on £85 per request and is refundable if the planning authority has not responded within 12 weeks.

Q40. Do you think there should be a fee payable for the discharge of conditions?

6.7.2 The consultation asked whether a fee should be payable for the discharge of conditions. The table below shows that a majority (55%) of respondents felt a fee should be payable for the discharge of conditions, primarily from the civil society and policy and planning groups. The introduction of a fee for the discharge of conditions was not supported by the business and development industry groups.

Do you think there should be a fee payable for the discharge of conditions?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	5	16	9
Civil Society	12	3	13
Development Industry	2	8	2
Policy and Planning	22	6	12
Total	41	33	35
% of Respondents Answering Question	55	45

6.7.3 There were 69 comments on whether a fee should be payable for the discharge of conditions across the following themes. The themes are presented in descending order of the number of comments received:

No Additional Fee

• Business: many respondents consider that the discharge of conditions forms part of the planning application determination process, for which fees are already considerable.
• Civil Society: a few respondents believe the cost of planning should encompass all aspects of the planning process and consider if there was an additional fee there would, potentially, be a perverse incentive for planning authorities to impose conditions that required discharge.
• Development Industry and Policy and Planning: several respondents from both development industry and policy and planning groups feel planning application fees are designed to cover all of the matters which a planning authority will need to consider in order to make its decision.

Similar to English System

• Business: several respondents believe it should mirror the English system in terms of cost per request (this can be multiple conditions in one application) and a refund if not responded to in 12 weeks.
• Development Industry: several respondents consider any fee which is introduced should be a token administrative charge only, and charged on a per-request basis, not per-condition.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents feel the English system would be appropriate.

Cost Recovery Fee

• Civil Society: a few respondents feel such fees should be used by an authority to facilitate the discharge of conditions and reflect the actual costs of provision.
• Development Industry: one respondent believes that the fees charged by the planning authorities should correlate with their effort relating to that project.
• Policy and Planning: several consider that the satisfaction and discharge of planning conditions can often, particularly with complex cases, require considerable time and effort and believe the application fee currently does not cover this cost.

Other observations

• Business: any new fee should also result in a significant improvement in service.
• Civil Society: a fee may be appropriate, though it should avoid a perverse incentive to set conditions to potentially generate income. However, charging for monitoring or discharge may incentivise applicants to resolve issues earlier.
• Development Industry: any new fee should result in a significant improvement in service and should be refundable if the authority has not responded within the relevant timeframe.
• Policy and Planning: it is important to encourage as much of the detail as possible to be included in the initial submission. The introduction of a fee per condition would encourage this.

6.8 Planning Agreements

6.8.1 Planning agreements have a limited, but useful role to play in planning, they can however, involve lengthy negotiations and add significantly to timescales. Processing agreements or pre-application discussions can be used to establish what will be expected from any agreement.

Q41. Do you think planning authorities should be able to charge for the drafting of planning agreements?

6.8.2 The consultation asked whether planning authorities should be able to charge for the drafting of planning agreements. The table below sets out respondents views and shows that the majority (59%) of respondents supported the ability of authorities to charge for the drafting of planning agreements. Support for the proposal was mainly from the civil society and policy and planning groups with business and development industry respondents opposing charging for the drafting of planning agreements.

Do you think that Planning Authorities should be able to charge for the drafting of planning agreements?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2	10	17
Civil Society	11	4	13
Development Industry	3	5	4
Policy and Planning	20	6	14
Total	36	25	48
% of Respondents Answering Question	59	41

6.8.3 There were 60 comments made about charging for planning agreements across a range of themes. The themes are presented in descending order of the number of comments received:

Cost Recovery Fee

• Civil Society and policy and planning: many respondents in the policy and planning group and several respondents from the civil society group support charging for the drafting of planning agreements in recognition of the need to resource this potentially complex area of work.

Should be Covered by Existing Fees

• Business: several respondents understand that the administrative costs of preparing a Section 75 agreement are intended to be covered by the planning application fee and consider this would be adequately addressed by the other proposed increases in fees.
• Civil Society: for a few respondents, the process is an all-embracing entity and any planning agreement fees required should be embodied in the overall fee structure.
• Development Industry: several respondents would uphold the principal, previously clarified by the Chief Planner, that the administrative costs of preparing a Section 75 agreement are intended to be covered by the planning application fee.
• Policy and Planning: a few respondents consider the increase in fees for applications is expected to cover the time involved in preparing agreements.

Other observations

• Business: There should only be a fee paid for drafting planning agreements if planning authorities could meet the required service level agreements. A few respondents would urge the Scottish Government to remove any provision for making a separate charge for planning agreements so that local authorities are incentivised to use whichever method is more appropriate (conditions or Section 75 Agreements) rather than what is likely to generate additional revenue.
• Civil Society: a few respondents believe the fee would be appropriate for larger, complicated sites.
• Development Industry: it is noted that some authorities already charge for the drafting of legal agreements. It is suggested that the system would benefit from using uniform legal agreements as a template.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider that it is appropriate that authorities legal costs for negotiating planning agreements falls outwith the scope of the planning fee payable by applicants to meet the cost of the planning service

Q41b. If so, how should this be calculated?

6.8.4 The consultation asked how the fee should be set if authorities can charge for the drafting of planning agreements. There were 29 comments on how any charge should be calculated and these are set out below by theme. The themes are described in descending order of comments received.

Cost Recovery Basis

• Civil Society: several respondents consider planning authorities should record officer time spent on planning agreements and charge accordingly.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents consider they should be able to charge applicants for the full legal costs in drafting legal agreements. It is noted that defining specific fee levels may not provide enough income to cover the additional costs associated with providing the necessary expertise when drafting more complex agreements.

National Fixed Fee

• Civil Society: one respondent suggests the fee could be 10% of the fee payable upon submission of a planning application.
• Development Industry: one respondent suggests there should be a limit to the charge of £5k.
• Policy and Planning: a few respondents consider any fee should be set by the Scottish Government. Views offered include a minimum flat fee of £1k to be increased per actual work carried out if the flat fee is exceeded and it should be calculated as a percentage of the application fee.

6.9 Masterplan Consent Area

6.9.1 Planning authorities can use Masterplan Consent Areas (MCA) as part of a proactive, place-making approach to planning and consenting. In order to put a MCA scheme in place, the planning authority will analyse the site, consult, prepare a masterplan, and set out the type of development consented along with any necessary conditions.

6.9.2 Development that is in line with the MCA scheme could be brought forward without the need for a planning application. An authority would effectively grant up-front consent for planned development, so there is benefit to potential investors in terms of adding certainty and removing much of the risk. In order to allow planning authorities to recoup some of the cost of establishing MCA schemes there is a proposal to bring in provisions for discretionary charging.

Q42. Should an authority be able to charge for development within a MCA to recoup the costs involved in setting one up?

6.9.3 The consultation asked whether an authority should be able to charge for development within a MCA (building or changes of use) in order to recoup the costs involved in setting one up. The majority of respondents did not answer this question, but of those who did, a substantial majority (87%) supported the proposal to be able to recoup the costs involved in setting up a MCA. There was support from all groups.

Should an authority be able to charge for development within an MCA (building, or changes of use) in order to recoup the costs involved in setting one up?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	13	2	13
Development Industry	3	1	8
Policy and Planning	25	3	12
Total	42	6	61
% of Respondents Answering Question	87	13

6.9.4 There were 47 comments on whether or not planning authorities should be able to charge for development within an MCA in order to recoup set-up costs. The themes are described below in descending order of the number of comments received

Cost Recovery Acceptable

• Business: one respondent considers fees for development within MCAs would be anticipated if this process were to replace the traditional consenting model for renewables.
• Civil Society: for several respondents this sounds a good idea and there should be a charge as it will help both the community and the developer.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents believe there should be scope for recovery of costs with regard to MCAs with some suggestions that the fees should be left to the discretion of the planning authority to reflect their costs at a local level.

Would Undermine Purpose

• Business and Development Industry: one business and a few development industry respondents believe a fee of this nature would risk undermining the planning authorities' determination to stimulate development in these areas.
• Civil Society: a few respondents consider charging a fee for development within a MCA would seem to undermine part of the purpose of a MCA which is to make development straightforward.
• Policy and Planning: one respondent is opposed to the fee and considers that MCAs provide a valuable tool to promote development and economic growth in targeted areas where development might not otherwise happen.

Other observations

• Business and Development Industry: for a few respondents from both business and development industry groups, any fee should be less than would be payable under the normal planning application route, given the removal of the administrative burden is one of the principles behind the creation of the MCA scheme. The fee should not be designed to fully recoup the planning authority's costs.
• Civil Society: a few respondents have some concern over the way that MCAs will operate and whether full scrutiny of the issues will be facilitated in this process.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents believe it is not clear how such a fee would be calculated and how it would be charged appropriately to developers.

Q42a. Should the Fee or an Upper Limit be Set in the Regulations

6.9.5 The consultation asked whether the Scottish Government should set a fee or an upper limit in the regulations. The majority of respondents did not answer this question, but of those who did, a majority (58%) supported the setting of a fee or upper limit in the regulations. Business and civil society respondents answering the question tended to support the proposal with development industry and policy and planning respondents being evenly split on whether the fee or an upper limit should be set in regulations.

Should we set the fee or an upper limit in the regulations?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	7	3	18
Development Industry	2	1	9
Policy and Planning	9	10	21
Total	19	14	76
% of Respondents Answering Question	58	42

6.10 Enhanced Project Managed Applications

6.10.1 Scottish Ministers are interested in improving the way that major developments are processed by authorities, from conception through to delivery. This would involve taking on a more corporate project management role. It is proposed that there could be a new mechanism and fee category for applications which will be subject to an Enhanced Project Managed Service. The preferred approach is for the applicant and the authority to come to an agreement on the time and resources required to determine the application, including the management and co-ordination of other consents and licences.

Q43. Should authorities be able to offer and charge for an enhanced project management service?

6.10.2 The consultation asked if authorities should have the ability to offer and charge for an enhanced project management service. The table below shows that a slight majority (52%) of respondents opposed the proposal. All groups were relatively evenly split on the issue except the development industry group which clearly opposed the proposal.

Should the ability to offer and charge for an enhanced project managed service be introduced?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	5	7	17
Civil Society	8	5	15
Development Industry	1	6	5
Policy and Planning	15	13	12
Total	29	31	49
% of Respondents Answering Question	48	52

Q43a. How should this process work?

6.10.3 The consultation sought views on how the process for offering and charging for an enhanced project management service should work. There were 60 comments across a range of themes which are described below in descending order of the number of comments.

Creation of a Two-tier System

• Business: several respondents believe a two-tier system should not be necessary if the service is adequate. Such a system will undoubtedly lead to poorer service delivery than developers are already experiencing.
• Civil Society: several respondents stated that it seems wrong in principle that an applicant should be able to buy priority in processing of applications and consider this to be to the detriment of meaningful public involvement and proper scrutiny.
• Development Industry: for a few respondents, the focus must be for the planning service to deliver quality decisions within the statutory timescales for all applications and not just the few who choose to pay additional fees.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents feel this process has the potential to create a two-tier planning system whereby those that are able, can pay to have a different service from other applicants.

Other observations

• Business: a few businesses believe this will enable Scottish Ministers to achieve their target of improving planning to an efficient and effective level. Others would only agree if there was genuinely exceptional service provided as a result.
• Civil Society: one respondent considers this would make the process much clearer and allow communities to get involved.
• Development Industry: a few respondents would support a fee if it resulted in demonstrably enhanced service, but the concern would be that this enhanced service would be limited by the ability and resources of statutory consultees to match the level of enhanced service.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents feel that it is a discretionary service and it should be a matter for the discretion of the planning authority to set fees if it chooses to provide the service.

Q43c. What, if anything, should happen in the event of failure to meet timescales?

6.10.4 There were 34 comments on what should happen in the event of a failure to meet the timescales agreed. The themes are described below in descending order of comments received

Penalty Clauses/Refund

• Business: several respondents consider there should be a refund/partial refund to the applicant as he/she will have paid for a service that has not been delivered.
• Civil Society: several respondents believe that unless there are mitigating circumstances penalty clauses are appropriate.
• Development Industry: several respondents consider that if timescales aren't met the full fee should be automatically refundable unless both parties agree to a new timescale.
• Policy and Planning: for a few respondents, it should also be a matter for the parties to any such arrangement to determine action and agree 'penalty clauses' in the event of failure to meet timescales. Others consider if there has been a demonstrated failure on the part of the local authority to deliver what was agreed at the outset, the difference between the enhanced fee and the standard fees should be refunded.

Other observations

• Business: one respondent supports the idea of developers being able to hold back a proportion of the planning application fee until service is delivered on time.
• Civil Society: it is suggested that nothing be done as timescales may be subject to delay from both parties.
• Development Industry: rather than penalties, incentives could potentially be included to meet statutory or otherwise agreed target timescales.
• Policy and Planning: it is suggested that the reasons will always be case specific, and it is counter-productive to try and come up with a national penalty system.

6.11 Self/Custom Build Registers

6.11.1 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 introduces a requirement for planning authorities to prepare, maintain and publish a list of people who have registered with the authority that they have an interest in acquiring land for self-build housing. The purpose of the list is to provide an evidence base of the level of demand for self-build housing. The consultation notes that councils in England are able to attach charges to the registers to reflect cost-recovery of managing and fulfilling the registers as well as local connection tests.

Q44. Should authorities be able to charge for adding or retaining people on the register of interested people?

6.11.2 The consultation sought views on whether planning authorities should be able to charge for adding or retaining people on the register of people interested in land for self-build housing. There was a slight majority (54%) of people in favour of authorities being able to charge, primarily from the policy and planning group. Business and civil society respondents answering the question were evenly split with the development industry opposed to the proposal.

Do you think charging for being added or retained on the register of interested people should be included in the list of services which Planning Authorities should be allowed to charge for?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1	1	27
Civil Society	5	5	18
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	14	9	17
Total	20	17	72
% of Respondents Answering Question	54	46

Q44a. Should there be a restriction on the amount that can be charged?

6.11.3 The consultation sought views on whether there should be a restriction on the amount that can be charged for being added or retained on the register. There was a majority (58%) of respondents in favour of there being a restriction on the amount that can be charged with support from all groups responding.

Should there be a restriction on the amount that can be charged?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	5	3	20
Development Industry	2		10
Policy and Planning	11	10	19
Total	18	13	78
% of Respondents Answering Question	58	42

6.11.4 There were 29 comments on the fees that could be charged for being added to the register of people interested in acquiring land for self-build. The themes are described below in descending order of the number of comments.

Nominal Fee

• Civil Society: one respondent suggests there should be a small, flat fee (e.g. £100) which is redeemable when a planning application is submitted for a self-build development.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider there should be a nominal flat rate per request (e.g. £50) to cover admin costs and ensure that there is a genuine interest in being added to the register.

Other observations

• Civil Society: a few respondents consider there should be no fee charged as maintaining the register should be part of the statutory planning service and should not be onerous if set up appropriately. On the other hand, several respondents believe any fee charged should be controlled to avoid being a revenue generating activity.
• Development Industry: one respondent considers that applying charges to this category of development is likely to have the effect of constraining delivery in this sector, which plays a small but important role in the overall delivery of housing land within housing market areas.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider it should be left to the discretion of the planning authority to set the fee while others believe the cost of setting up and maintaining the register appears to be minimal and therefore charging a fee appears unreasonable.

6.12 Charging for Appeals

6.12.1 One of the options considered in the consultation is the potential for charging for appeals against planning application decisions. The Scottish Government believes it is important to ensure that the planning system is appropriately resourced. Scottish Ministers, through DPEA play a crucial role in determining applications through appeals and the consultation proposed that this should be appropriately resourced through fee income.

6.12.2 If, following this consultation, fees for appeals are to proceed, further consultation will be undertaken on the detail of the fee levels and other fee arrangements. The consultation sought a range of views on charging for appeals.

Q45. Do you think, in principle, that fees should be charged for appeals to DPEA?

6.12.3 The table below sets out respondents' views on whether fees should be charged to DPEA. The majority (63%) felt that, in principle, fees should be charged for appeals to DPEA. While the majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposal, the majority of business and development industry respondents were opposed to the proposal.

Do you think that, in principle, fees should be charged for appeals to DPEA?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1	15	14
Civil Society	15	3	10
Development Industry	4	7	1
Policy and Planning	25	2	13
Total	45	27	37
% of Respondents Answering Question	63	37

Q45a. Should we limit the circumstances in which a fee can be charged for lodging an appeal?

6.12.4 There were 62 comments on whether the circumstances should be limited in which a fee can be charged for lodging an appeal. Of these, 15 answered 'No' and 4 answered 'Yes'. The remainder responded according to the following themes which are shown in descending order of comments received.

Fee Would Hinder Impartiality

• Business: many respondents consider that the right of appeal is an essential element of checks and balances in a fair system and in ensuring access to justice, any fees which are charged for appeals must be proportionate. The costs of submitting an appeal are already great. If there were further significant fees, an applicant may be coerced into accepting unreasonable demands or conditions.
• Development Industry: several respondents do not support fees for planning appeals. It is crucial that the independent appeals system remains impartial and without cost to consider an application that has potentially been determined incorrectly.
• Policy and Planning: one respondent considers that there should not be a charge for appeal/review as people should have a free right of appeal.

Cost Recovery - Full or Admin Only

• Civil Society: several respondents note that appeals can result in considerable costs incurred by the DPEA, planning authorities and statutory agencies and wider stakeholders and, therefore, it seems reasonable that there is a mechanism to allow fees to be charged to help contribute towards costs.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider the principle of a charge to cover costs associated with the administration of the process would not be unreasonable.

Other observations

• Business: for a few respondents any potential fee structure must be directly related to achieving good standards of service in regard to timescales. In the interest of fairness, applications for a local review should not be omitted from fee arrangements.
• Civil Society: it is noted that the local community should have the right to appeal, not just the developer.
• Development Industry: it is suggested the fee rate should be based on the type of development and method of determination or that the planning authority should reimburse the DPEA for the cost of appeals that they lose.
• Policy and Planning: a few respondents consider there should be no limit on the circumstances and the fee system should be applied to all appeals.

Q45b. In what circumstances do you think a fee should be paid for lodging an appeal?

6.12.5 There were 43 comments on the circumstances in which a fee should be paid for lodging an appeal. The themes are described below in descending order of the number of comments.

All Appeals

• Civil Society: several respondents consider all appeals should be charged.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents consider the fee should apply in all circumstances.

No Fees

• Business: one respondent does not support the overarching principle of appeal fees.
• Development Industry: several respondents do not feel that there is any case where a fee should be paid for an appeal.

Other observations

• Business: possibly where an application is explicitly at odds with a development plan or if there was greater consistency and better decision-making, so appeals were only necessary in exceptional cases.
• Civil Society: where the application has changed extensively, or the original application was poorly presented.
• Development Industry: when a proposal is contrary to the development plan.
• Policy and Planning: if fees are not to be charged universally then they should be charged where a proposal does not accord with the development plan.

Q45c. Do you think that the fee should be refunded in the event of a successful appeal?

6.12.6 The consultation sought views on whether the fee should be refunded in the event of a successful appeal. The table below shows that the majority (69%) of respondents answering the question opposed the proposal of refunding the fee in the event of a successful appeal. Of those who answered the question, the majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents opposed the refunding of the fee while the majority of business and development industry respondents supported the proposal.

Do you think that the fee should be refunded in the event of a successful appeal?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	8	2	19
Civil Society	2	13	13
Development Industry	4		8
Policy and Planning	3	22	15
Total	17	37	55
% of Respondents Answering Question	31	69

Q45d. If so, should this follow the same process as is currently set out for awarding costs?

6.12.7 The consultation asked if fees were refunded, should this follow the same process as is currently set out for awarding costs. There were 34 comments and of these, 5 answered 'Yes'^[8] and 2 answered 'No'.^[9] The remainder responded according to the following themes

No - Costs Still Incurred

• Civil Society: a few respondents consider that fees should not be refunded. The fee is to pay for the appeal process, which is separate from the application.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider that regardless of whether the appeal is upheld or dismissed the same level of resource is required to handle and process that appeal and it would be counter-productive to reimburse fees.

Other observations

• Business: a few respondents suggest arrangements for award of costs should be reviewed with a view to making them less off-putting to those applicants whom they are designed to assist.
• Development Industry: a few respondents do not support the overarching principle of appeal fees. Other suggestions include fees should be refunded automatically in the event of a successful appeal without any further conjecture.
• Policy and Planning: An appellant can claim costs against a planning authority if it has acted unreasonably. If a planning authority was found to have acted unreasonably an appellant could presumably claim the appeal fee cost as part of any expenses claim.

Q45e. What categories of appeals should be considered for charging?

6.12.8 The consultation asked what categories of appeals should be considered for charging. There were 34 comments across the themes described below with

All Categories

• Civil Society: several respondents consider all categories of appeals should be charged as they all incur costs which should not be borne by the tax payer.
• Development Industry: one respondent suggests there should be a standard fee for local or major development.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents consider all categories of appeals should be charged, with a few suggesting the fee should be proportionate and could be related to a percentage of the original planning application fee.

Other observations

• Business: one respondent states they are not in support of the overarching principle of appeal fees.
• Civil Society: one respondent thinks there should be no charging, whereas another suggests fees should only be charged for poorly presented applications.
• Development Industry: a few respondents consider there should be no fee paid to lodge and appeal.
• Policy and Planning: one respondent opposes the introduction of a fee for appeals to the designation of listed buildings and scheduled monuments, another considers if the submission of a planning application fee was not required due to disability then no fee should be payable in the event of an appeal. It is also suggested that major applications, enforcement notices and planning obligation appeals should be considered for charging.

Q45f. Do you think that a fee scale should be provided in relation to appeals to Local Review Bodies (LRB) and, if so, should the arrangements differ from appeals to DPEA?

6.12.9 The consultation sought views on whether a fee scale should be provided in relation to appeals to LRBs and, if so, should the arrangements differ from appeals to DPEA. There were 45 comments on whether the fee scale for appeals to LRBs should differ from appeals to DPEA. The themes are described below in descending order of comments received.

Yes - Same as DPEA

• Civil Society: several respondents agree and consider if it is considered appropriate to charge for that service the fee scale should be set at a national level and charging should not be discretionary.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents agree that a fee should be provided in relation to LRB appeals and that it should be the same as appeals to DPEA.

Other observations

• Business: a few respondents disagree with the proposal. Another restates their opposition to appeal fees in principle.
• Civil Society: one respondent suggests fees should not be charged on the same basis as (DPEA) appeals. Others suggest the fees should reflect actual costs.
• Development Industry: a few respondents disagree with the proposal and others restate their opposition to appeal fees in principle.
• Policy and Planning: one respondent disagrees because the resource implications are less onerous than an appeal to the DPEA. Another considers it may prove simpler to refund LRB fees in the event of a successful outcome as all monies (for LRB and the original planning fee) will have been paid to the planning authority.

6.13 Reducing and Waiving Fees

6.13.1 Another new provision introduced in the Planning Act is the ability for authorities to waive or reduce a planning fee. The Scottish Government believes that authorities should have discretion to use this power where they consider appropriate. They expect to set out in regulations the procedures authorities would need to follow to allow them to waive or reduce fees.

Q46. Do you have any suggestions as to the circumstances in which authorities could waive or reduce a planning fee?

6.13.2 The consultation sought views on the circumstances in which authorities could waive or reduce a planning fee. There were 57 comments relating to the appropriate circumstances across all groups. The themes are described below in descending order of comments received.

Where Community or Environmental Benefit

• Business: one respondent considers that a reduced or waived fee should apply to developments which accord with the Scottish Government's ambitions of meeting climate change targets.
• Civil Society: many respondents consider that projects that benefit the community and the environment should have fees reduced.
• Development Industry: a reduction in a planning fee could be appropriate for planning applications for development on sites allocated within an adopted Local Development Plan.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents would like to see reduced fees for charities and community groups.

Not Appropriate

• Business: a few respondents disagree with the proposal that individual authorities should be put in the position of setting different practices for reducing/waiving fees.
• Civil Society: one respondent considers that waiving or reducing a planning fee should not be permitted.
• Development Industry: one respondent considers the current system where initial resubmissions have the fee waived if submitted in certain timescales or community councils pay half of the fee should be maintained.
• Policy and Planning: many respondents disagree with the proposals and consider discretionary powers to waive fees would bring uncertainty to the fee structure and would appear inconsistent with the aim of making the planning system cost neutral.

Other observations

• Business: one respondent felt the introduction of the ability of planning authorities to reduce or waive fees should be regulated, and good advice provided to authorities, to prevent inconsistency of approach and potential inequality. A few respondents (including one from development industry) felt that any decision to waive or reduce fees should be at the cost of the planning authority having weighted up the potential public benefit gain.
• Civil Society: a few respondents felt that fees should be waived in certain circumstances e.g. where service levels have not been met, where advice given has changed between the pre-application and full application stage.
• Development Industry: A few respondents highlighted a number of circumstances where fees should be waived or reduced including a lack of communication from the planning authority, slow processing of the application and assessment not in accordance with processing agreement. Another respondent felt a reduced fee was appropriate following a paid pre-application enquiry.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents think it should be left to local discretion, whereas a few others think parameters should be set at a national level.

Q46a. Should the maximum reduction allowed be set out in regulations?

6.13.3 The consultation sought views on whether the maximum reduction allowed should be set out in regulations with responses set out in the table below. The majority of respondents did not answer the question, but of those who did, there was a majority (57%) in support of the maximum reduction being set out in the regulations. Support was primarily from the civil society and policy and planning groups with business respondents opposed and the development industry respondents evenly split on the proposal.

Should the maximum reduction allowed be set out in regulations?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		2	27
Civil Society	9	5	14
Development Industry	2	2	8
Policy and Planning	10	7	23
Total	21	16	72
% of Respondents Answering Question	57	43

6.13.4 There were 32 comments on whether the maximum reductions should be set out in the regulations across a range of themes. Of these, 17 answered 'Yes' and 13 answered 'No' and the themes are described below in descending order of comments received.

Yes - Consistency and Clarity

• Civil Society: several respondents think the maximum reductions should be set out to provide transparency and consistency across all planning authorities.
• Development Industry: one respondent considers this would provide a clearer way forward.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents agree with the proposal and consider if such provisions were to be introduced the maximum reduction should be set out in regulations and the basis for any reduction to maintain confidence in the planning system and to provide a clear framework for local authorities.

No - Local Discretion

• Business: one respondent can see no need for a maximum reduction to be set out in regulations, given the financial hit of any waiver or reduction will be borne by the local authority. Local authorities should be capable of making that judgement call.
• Civil Society: several respondents consider local authorities should have discretion, in order to meet their local needs.
• Development Industry: a few respondents disagree and consider at least in the near term, that it should be up to each individual authority to make their own arrangements so as to allow the market to discover what arrangements may be beneficial and whether they actually work.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents consider this should be at the authority's own discretion as circumstances can be different for different authorities.