Planning system - mandatory training for elected members: consultation analysis

2. Who should undertake the training?

The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 states that any elected member who has not fulfilled the specified training requirements will be prohibited from 'exercising any of the authority's specified functions on their behalf'. Planning functions undertaken by elected members can include determination of planning applications, the development plan process, and other development management functions.

Prior stakeholder engagement has identified improving consistency in the determination of planning applications as the most important issue to be addressed by mandatory training. The consultation therefore proposes that elected members should be prohibited from taking decisions on planning applications until mandatory training requirements have been met.

It is noted that the requirement to complete mandatory training would apply to elected members acting in their capacity as a member of a planning committee, Full Council or any Local Review Body (LRB). However, the consultation seeks views on whether the specific training requirements and content should vary for elected members depending on whether they take part in planning decisions through a planning committee, Full Council or any other body.

Question 1: Should the determination of planning applications be the only specified function that elected members are prohibited from doing until training requirements have been completed?

Responses to Question 1 by respondent type are set out in Table 2.

22 of the 120 consultation respondents (18%) did not answer this question and are not included in the results presented above. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Less than half of those who answered the question (45%) agreed that the determination of planning applications should be the only specified function that elected members are prohibited from doing until training requirements have been completed - the remaining 55% disagreed. Organisations were less likely to agree than individuals, with 38% and 55% agreeing respectively.

Please add any comment in support of your answer at Question 1.

Around 80 respondents provided further comment at Question 1.

Reasons for supporting the proposal

A number of those providing comment, particularly planning authorities, took the opportunity to express their general support for elected members being prohibited from determining planning applications unless they meet training requirements. For some respondents, this reflected a broader view that suitable training would be beneficial across all planning functions, such as planning policy creation and development plan processes. However, it was also suggested that the more complex, technical considerations involved in determining planning applications mean that this function specifically should be limited to those who have completed the required training.

It was noted that elected members may not have the planning background required for these functions, and there was reference to the role of training in improving the consistency of standards across these functions. Respondents also referred to planning reform having resulted in significant changes to the planning system, and to development planning in particular. It was suggested that the determination of planning applications – via planning committees and LRB - place an additional burden on elected members as they are required to exercise their judgement in what was described as a 'quasi-judicial' process.

Some planning authorities specifically suggested that the determination of planning applications should be the only function that elected members are prohibited from doing until training requirements have been met. These respondents recognised the potential benefits of training across other planning functions, but for example suggested that some discretion would help local authorities to manage delivery of training. It was also noted that elected members have the opportunity to draw on the knowledge and experience of planning officers across other functions such as development plan processes.

In addition to reasoning in favour of the proposal, respondents also highlighted several points for clarification:

• There was a perceived need to ensure that elected members can continue to exercise their democratic mandate, for example by voting on inclusion of a new housing site in their ward area.
• It was suggested that 'emergency provisions' may be required for cases where a planning authority does not have sufficient trained elected members to make planning decisions.

Reasons for not supporting the proposal

The most common point raised by those opposed to the proposal was that mandatory planning training should apply across other planning functions, in addition to determination of planning applications. This included planning authorities, planning/other professionals and private sector respondents expressing a view that elected members should be prohibited from all planning-related decisions until they have completed the required training.

It was proposed that more detailed training may be provided specifically around the determination of planning applications, but that a core level of training should be mandatory across all planning functions. Respondents noted the consultation paper's reference to elected members having a role in the development plan process and other development management functions. It was suggested that these functions could have potentially significant impacts on the local planning system, and that training would be required to ensure that all planning decisions are impartial and based on an understanding of planning legislation and policy.

In terms of specific additional areas where respondents wished to see mandatory training, this was most commonly in relation to elected members' role in Local Development Plan (LDP) progression. This was suggested by planning authorities, planning/other professionals, private and third sector respondents who felt that planning training should be required for all elected members with a role in the Development Plan process. These respondents noted the complexity of the LDP, and its importance for local communities and development management.

Other planning functions and areas where respondents suggested that mandatory training requirements should apply are summarised below.

• Approval of other policies such as Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Place Plans,
• Adoption of statutory or non-statutory planning guidance.
• Other planning-related consents that can involve technical complexity such as Listed Building, Conservation Area, advertisement and consents under Sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
• The notification process allowing a planning application to be called in to committee.
• Planning enforcement decisions.
• Planning authority responses to planning consultations.

There was also a perceived need for cross-departmental work by local authorities to ensure that other committees and functions have an appropriate understanding of planning policy – for example, transport, infrastructure and education committees.

Concerns were also raised around the potential for elected members being restricted from taking decisions for which they have been democratically elected. This included specific reference to elected members who are not on the planning committee not being sufficiently incentivised to take up training, and the associated risk of Full Council planning decisions being delayed due to a lack of trained elected members.

Question 2: Should the training requirements vary for elected members depending on whether they participate in a planning committee, Full Council or Local Review Body?

Responses to Question 2 by respondent type are set out in Table 3.

19 of the 120 consultation respondents (16%) did not answer this question and are not included in the results presented above. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

The majority of those who answered the question (64%) disagreed that training requirements should vary depending on whether elected members participate in a planning committee, Full Council or Local Review Body - the remaining 36% felt that training requirements should vary. This balance of views was broadly similar between organisations and individuals (34% and 38% agreeing respectively).

Please add any comment in support of your answer at Question 2.

Around 85 respondents provided further comment at Question 2.

Reasons for supporting the proposal

Those who supported the proposal to vary training requirements suggested that these should reflect the different types of decisions and planning issues considered by planning committees, LRB and other decision-making bodies. Several planning authorities suggested that a minimum 'core' level of training could be relevant for all elected members; for example it was noted that all members are likely to be required to consider a planning application, approve a Local Development Plan and/or be contacted by constituents on planning matters. However, there was a view that the detail and focus of training could vary dependent on the elected members' specific role.

Varying training requirements was most commonly highlighted for elected members who participate in the LRB and/or planning committee, with a number of respondents suggesting that enhanced training may be required in these circumstances. This included several planning authority respondents and some planning/other professionals. Respondents suggested that elected members making planning decisions on the LRB and/or planning committee will require more detailed development planning knowledge, and that the LRB is required to exercise delegated powers often in relation to complex or controversial applications where applicants have limited scope for further challenge.

A small number of respondents offered a view on how the level and focus of planning training could be varied for planning committee and/or LRB members. This included proposals for more in-depth training around how a planning application is determined (e.g. weight given to policy and how to achieve planning balance, material considerations, design issues, representations, planning conditions, etc), the role of the Local Development Plan, the role of the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA), and dedicated local review training for LRB members. Some referred to specific types of planning decisions which were seen as having potential to involve complex legal issues (and where additional training may be beneficial) such as advertisements, certificates of lawfulness of existing or proposed use. It was also suggested that the frequency of training could be varied, for example with more frequent annual 'refresher' training for elected members on the Full Council and/or LRB who are likely to be less frequently involved in planning decisions.

Reasons for not supporting the proposal

A number of planning authority and private sector respondents provided comment in support of an approach where the same training requirements apply to all elected members, regardless of their level of planning decision-making. This included private sector respondents who saw a need for greater consistency of understanding of the planning system across elected members.

Some of the planning authorities providing comment focused specifically on the training requirements for planning committees and LRB. It was suggested that, although they have distinct functions, planning committees and LRBs are required to deal with the same material considerations and follow the same processes – and therefore require similar levels of planning knowledge.

A small number of respondents suggested that a lower level of training may be suitable for other elected members. However, others were of the view that the determination of planning decisions by the Full Council places similar requirements on elected members and has a similar impact for local communities, particularly as Full Council decisions often relate to larger-scale and more complex applications that require a robust knowledge of planning policy. It was also suggested that elected members' role in determining the Development Plan process would benefit from planning training. In this context there was a perceived need to ensure that all elected members meet the same basic level of training.

Other issues raised by those who opposed the proposal – especially planning authorities - included concern that different levels of training could add to confusion for elected members, and could be challenging for planning authorities in delivering training. Respondents also cited examples of planning authorities where all elected members sit on a planning committee and/or where LRB members are required to be planning committee members, such that varying training requirements would not be appropriate.