Planning: Proportionality of Assessments Short Life Working Group minutes: September 2024

Attendees and apologies

• Craig McLaren, National Planning Improvement Champion
• Stephen Tucker, Stantec
• Kevin Treadwell, Fife Council and HOPS representative
• Fiona Simpson, Scottish Government
• Lyndsey Murray, Scottish Government

Items and actions

Introduction

The Chief Planner thanked everyone for their continued interest.

Discussion

The group discussed the draft discussion paper which had been circulated in advance of the meeting, as well as worked example of a typical development in Fife.

 

Validation

It was agreed that validation is an issue that is frequently raised as a performance challenge across planning authorities.

There appears to be different views on what is required to validate applications, and what is required to assess them. There is a lack of clarity and predictability, and practice appears to be inconsistent across authorities.

Timing and performance statistics are part of this.

Heads of Planning Scotland (HOPS) guidance on validation was noted to be helpful but may not be applied consistently across all authorities. There may be scope to develop this further.

Some authorities have adopted their own guidance on validation too. The group agreed that this is useful, but there may be scope to take this further by considering scope to agree a more consistent approach across all authorities, in the interests of predictability and consistency.

There is also an important role for applicants, with applications which have come forward prematurely with insufficient information taking longer to process.

Conversely, more information upfront should lead to a quicker and smoother process – this is an important message to convey to the development sector.

The role of artificial intellegience (AI)/ digital in validation was also considered to have potential to help streamline this part of the process. This could for example use data on development constraints to indicate the type of information that would be required in each case (e.g. applications in flood risk areas).

Information requirements at different stages

The group discussed the approach to information requirements for different types of planning application.

In particular, it was noted that information required for planning permission in principle (PPiP) applications can often be disproportionate. At this stage developers are seeking to minimise costs and aiming to establish the principle of development on a site, rather than seeking full permission. Examples of this included very detailed asks for design specifications for proposed city centre developments – where at PPiP stage the principle of the development is all that is being sought.

It was agreed there could be more scope to encourage planning authorities and applicants to take a broader approach to PPiP where they agree parameters for the full application to work within.

This was considered a distinct issue from other applications - planning authorities legitimately seek more information for full planning applications.

There is a balance to be struck - where less information is available to support applications, planning authorities understandably feel there is a need to attach more conditions to the planning permission.

Regardless of the stage and extent of information required, it was agreed that it is helpful where authorities set out information requirements early in the process to avoid follow up requests as far as possible.

Frontloading of information at the Local Development Plan (LDP) stage may also help to reduce additional requirements for information on applications for allocated sites – raising an opportunity for councils to consider this as they bring forward new plans.

The group also agreed that it may be useful to explore the extent to which planning authorities are willing to accept different levels of risk and certainty at different stages as proposed developments proceed through the planning process, recognising that the process is dynamic and can be staged.

Example - flood risk assessments and validated assessors

The example of flood risk assessments was discussed, drawing on a typical example presented by the HOPS representative.

The Scottish Envirmoent Protection Agency (SEPA) had not objected to the application on flooding or coastal erosion and therefore provided no detailed advice beyond highlighting the risk of coastal flooding.

Dynamic Coast objected on the basis of significant erosion that would create a flood risk and concluded the proposal was contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) (Policy 10). They also objected as the coastal defence measures would cause further erosion seaward.

Council initially requested hard coastal defence measures (2021). In 2023, they recommended refusal as the proposal would require new coastal defence measures (contrary to NPF4-Policy 10). They also provided advice to amend the design of the coastal defence measures, should the planning authority move to approve the proposal. However, they would not comment further on whether the amended designs to the coastal defences were adequate as they were opposed on principle.

External consultant appointed to review whether amended coastal defence design was adequate. External consultant advised the situation on the ground had changed markedly from when the application was initially assessed, as dunes had since been washed away.

In the absence of any new coastal defences, the site and a supermarket to the rear of the site will be at risk of erosion in the future.

The applicant has instructed their appointed consultants to produce an updated flood risk assessment. To date, no new information has been submitted.

There appears to be a lack of clarity around the need to protect existing assets at risk of flooding/erosion when assessing new coastal defence measures against NPF4.

The group discussed whether there was scope for a single flood risk assessment to be undertaken by an accredited assessor (or a nominated key agency) and accepted by all parties. Other options might include a standard template for local authority flood teams.

The group agreed this type of solution, in broader terms, would merit further consideration as a means of reducing time and cost for all parties. This could also be helpful for other topics including education, transport, biodiversity.  More templates and standardisation of assessments also has potential.

Potential actions / next steps

The following key actions were proposed for further consideration:

Next steps for the group

• Group to explore a specific example of PPiP and information requirements. ST to provide example.
• Group to conduct a ‘lean’ review of the process for sharing with other authorities. Post meeting – Homes for Scotland have since volunteered to provide an example of a SME development to support the group’s discussion. Scottish Government (SG) following up with HFS.

Potential solutions for further development at the next meeting in November

• HOPS guidance. Discuss with HoPS the scope for further developing the guidance on validation, including provision of a clearer steer on different levels of detail being appropriate for different stages. Consider also whether key principles / commitments to consistent practice can be articulated, strengthened and promoted. Explore scope to have a single version  / approach in agreed guidance, rather than bespoke / individual local authority versions. Provide clarity on information required for validation, and information required for assessment. Promote the use of pre-application discussions to agree information needs – planning authorities and applicants, as well as key agencies.  Use the updated guidance to stimulate training / sharing of best practice
• Discuss with professional bodies e.g. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment the extent to which validated assessors could reduce the need for multiple assessments
• Discuss scope for service level agreements with key agencies so information requirements can be agreed as early as possible
• Highlight the importance of providing sufficient information to applicants – getting it right first time to reduce timescales and smooth the process
• Consider whether fees could be raised where invalid applications are repeatedly submitted
• Ensure the information requirements for LDPs (ie. call for sites) are designed to dovetail with the development management process to reduce the need for additional requirements
• Consider scope to bring forward digital solutions for validation and associated back office system – interface with new ‘apply’ service which will come forward to replace the current e.development service, and / or customisation of uniform systems to do this