Planning system - mandatory training for elected members: consultation analysis

3. What should the training cover?

The consultation paper indicates that previous desk-based research and stakeholder engagement has identified a consensus view that the content for mandatory training should focus on the key principles and knowledge of the planning system that are likely to be applicable to all types of planning applications. Local authorities would have the discretion to provide additional training on local planning considerations and policies, but this would not form part of the mandatory training.

Question 3: Should the mandatory training be focused on the key principles and knowledge of the planning system?

Responses to Question 3 by respondent type are set out in Table 4.

13 of the 120 consultation respondents (11%) did not answer this question and are not included in the results presented above. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

A large majority of those who answered the question (79%) agreed that mandatory training should be focused on the key principles and knowledge of the planning system - the remaining 21% disagreed. This balance of views was very similar between organisations and individuals (78% and 79% agreeing respectively).

Please add any comment in support of your answer at Question 3.

Around 70 respondents provided further comment at Question 3.

Reasons for supporting the proposal

Those who supported the proposed focus of mandatory training saw the key principles and knowledge of the planning system as an appropriate starting point to ensure that elected members have the required grounding in relevant legislation and policy. This was described as critical to elected members' understanding of the planning system and ability to make good planning decisions.

Several planning authorities were of the view that the content of mandatory training may have to be relatively 'high level'. For example, it was suggested that more strategically focused training content would ensure that this can apply across all planning authority areas, and there was concern that it is unrealistic to expect training to cover all of the policy and procedural aspects of the planning policy framework. It was also noted that elected members have access to professional advisors in the course of making planning decisions, and hence some suggested that training does not need to cover all aspects of planning policy.

A number of planning authorities in particular also noted that there should be scope for individual authorities to provide more tailored localised training where necessary. This was seen as crucial in ensuring that elected members can take account of local planning policies and issues in their decision making. Some private sector respondents and planning authorities expressed concern that these more local considerations should not be considered optional and suggested that this additional, localised training should also be mandatory – albeit content would vary between planning authorities.

Those who supported the proposed focus of mandatory training also referenced specific principles and aspects of the planning system that they wished to see addressed by training:

• The importance of the planning system being plan-led, including the primacy of the Local Development Plan and its relationship with NPF4.
• The importance of decisions being based on planning policy and/or other material planning considerations.
• What constitutes a valid material planning consideration.

Reasons for not supporting the proposal

Other respondents providing comment were of the view that training should go beyond key principles and knowledge. This was seen as essential to ensure that elected members can put their knowledge of planning policy into practice to make informed and reasoned planning decisions. A number of these respondents made reference to specific aspects of the planning policy framework which they wished to see included in mandatory training:

• Some private sector respondents suggested additional training on complex development types, such as renewable energy and marine development.
• Some public bodies and private sector respondents suggested topic-based technical training on other relevant issues such as climate change mitigation and adaption, nature, flood risk and water resilience.
• A planning authority mentioned understanding of common elements of the decision-making process across the planning system.
• Some planning authorities and private sector respondents referred to how elected members should interpret planning policy, apply this to individual applications and weigh policy against relevant material considerations to ensure planning balance in their decisions.
• A private sector respondent referred to the potential impact of planning decisions taken by elected members.
• Some planning authorities and private sector respondents suggested functional processes and procedures, including specifically around planning enforcement.
• Some public bodies made reference to requirements of the Councillor's Code of Conduct in relation to the planning system.
• A private sector respondent suggested understanding of how the remit of planning authorities sits alongside other regulators.

Question 4: Do you agree with the list of topics to cover?

The consultation paper set out a more detailed list of the areas that are proposed to be included in mandatory training, structured around the main topics of (i) the importance of a plan led system, (ii) planning application process, (iii) decision making at committee, (iv) the role of elected members, and (v) post decision.

Responses to Question 4 by respondent type are set out in Table 5.

14 of the 120 consultation respondents (12%) 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 (84%) agreed with the proposed list of topics for mandatory training - the remaining 16% disagreed. This balance of views was similar between organisations and individuals, with 86% and 81% agreeing respectively.

Please add any comment in support of your answer at Question 4.

Around 65 respondents provided further comment at Question 4.

Reasons for supporting the proposed list of topics

A number of those providing comment expressed their general support for the proposed list of training topics. This included comments from planning authorities, other public bodies, planning/other professionals, private sector respondents and individuals.

Support for the proposed list of topics included a view that these are relevant to the key purpose of mandatory training - i.e. to enable elected members to make informed and balanced planning decisions. However, there were suggestions that some topics deserve greater emphasis, including a view that the primary focus should be on the decision-making process rather than more 'strategic' issues. Specific topics highlighted by respondents are summarised below. A number of these respondents also suggested additional topics for mandatory training at Question 5.

• The importance of a plan-led system was highlighted by some planning authorities and other public bodies, including reference to the role of the LDP and understanding of the development plan process.
• Understanding of the planning application process for different types of application and consents.
• Understanding of the decision-making and committee process, seen by some planning authorities and other public bodies as a key focus for training to ensure a consistent approach to decision making. Respondents also referred to understanding of material considerations and the importance of planning balance in decisions.
• The role of elected members, including adherence to rules and procedures.

Opposition to the proposed list of topics and suggested amendments or additions

Those who disagreed with the proposed list of training topics included some who expressed concern around whether the relatively extensive set of proposed topics would be achievable, and who saw a need for training to focus on the key areas of most relevance to elected members. It was also suggested that there may be a need to prioritise key topics to ensure they are deliverable within the 3-hour period for online training suggested in the consultation paper.

Most of those providing comment at Question 4 – including those who agreed and those who disagreed with the proposed list of training topics – suggested addition or amendment to the list. This included several planning authorities referring to the potential role of additional bespoke training provided by individual authorities, for example around local planning policies and subject-specific issues, and to take account of specific issues facing urban and rural authority areas. These respondents wished to ensure sufficient flexibility to allow planning authorities to supplement the 'core' training content in this way.

In addition, respondents highlighted the following areas to be added to the specific training topics set out in the consultation paper.

• In relation to the importance of a plan-led system, the role of key agencies supporting the preparation of plans and strategies, the planning system's contribution to wider strategic priorities such as biodiversity and nature, and the potential impact of decisions for local communities, economies and the environment,
• In relation to the planning application process, it was suggested that this is an 'operational matter' that is less important for elected members' decision making.
• In relation to decision making at committee, the role of statutory consultees and other stakeholders, notification of Ministers, and the difference between quasi-judicial planning decisions and non-quasi-judicial decisions.
• In relation to the role of elected members, reference to the Councillor's Code of Conduct, the role of expert advice and how to access this,
• In relation to post decision issues, the award of costs in appeals, and enforcement of planning decisions and conditions. Several planning authority, public body and planning professional respondents also saw a need for more detailed dedicated training on the role and remit of the LRB.

Question 5: Are there any other topics that you think should be covered in the mandatory training?

Around 85 respondents answered Question 5.

The majority of these respondents referred to specific issues under the five proposed topics that they felt should be covered by mandatory training. These are summarised below.

In relation to the importance of a plan-led system, the area most commonly raised by respondents was ensuring that elected members understand the wider strategic priorities that they should consider in their planning decisions. This was highlighted by a range of respondents including planning authorities, other public bodies, private sector and third sector respondents. Respondents referred to priorities set out by NPF4, and specific policy areas such as climate change and associated net zero commitments, nature, sustainability, and flood risk and water resilience. Other areas highlighted in relation to a plan-led system included:

• Setting out the formal stages of the development plan process, and how elected members can best engage in the process to encourage 'ownership' - suggested by a small number of planning authorities.
• The role of key agencies in supporting the plan-led system.
• The role of the NPF4 Delivery Programme.
• Infrastructure First policies.
• The distinction between statutory and non-statutory planning guidance – suggested by a small number of private sector respondents.
• Site allocation criteria for the Local Development Plan - suggested by a small number of private sector respondents.
• An understanding of housing land supply including the Housing Land Requirement and Land Pipeline – suggested by a small number of private sector respondents.

In relation to the planning application process, several private sector and other public body respondents wished to ensure that elected members have a good understanding of different types of planning application and consents. This included specific reference to Planning Permission in Principle, Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions and full planning application, and reference to consents such as applications for Listed Building or Conservation Area Consent and the potential role of Masterplan Consent Areas. Other issues raised in relation to the planning application process included:

• Consideration of the hierarchy of development, including different types of national planning developments and how planning decisions are taken at a national level (e.g. the role of key stakeholders, and the remit of the DPEA).
• What constitutes Permitted Development.
• The Section 36 and 37 process under the Electricity Act 1989.
• Public Local Enquiry processes.

Decision making at committee was seen by some – especially planning authorities, other public bodies and planning/other professionals - as a key focus for mandatory training. This was seen as particularly relevant given the overall objective of mandatory training to ensure a consistent approach to decision making across planning authorities. Respondents referred to various specific issues, including:

• Ensuring understanding of supporting processes and assessments was mentioned by several planning authorities and planning/other professionals. This included reference to Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, Strategic Environment Assessment, Habitats, and more generally the approach to assessing the environmental impact of development proposals,
• The role of specific officers and agents including the Planning Advisor and Monitoring Solicitor.
• Processes for pre-determination hearings and full Council decisions.
• Notification of Applications to Scottish Ministers.
• The role of statutory consultees and other stakeholders.
• Managing stakeholder and press communication as an elected member.
• Engaging with 'seldom heard' groups such as children and young people, older people, people with disability, and Gypsy/Travellers.
• The implications of planning refusals was referenced by private sector, planning authority and planning professional respondents. This included in terms of the likelihood (and likely outcome) of appeals and associated costs for the Council, particularly where decisions are contrary to LDP and officer recommendations.

Training on the role of elected members was highlighted by a mix of planning authorities, planning/other professionals and private sector respondents as an important opportunity to ensure that members are aware of and comply with relevant procedures. This included reference to requirements set out in the Councillor's Code of Conduct. Other specific issues included conflicts of interest, awareness of the role of the planning officer (and Chief Planning Officer) including the training that planning officers require, and awareness of current methods to engage with regulators or applicants. It was also suggested that specific training should be provided for the chair or convener on the management of committee meetings and decision-making processes.

Reference to post decision issues related primarily to appeals and LRB. For example, it was suggested that elected members would benefit from training on how the appeals process operates, and how to explain appeals processes to members of the public. Calls for more in-depth dedicated training on LRB (noted at Question 4) were also repeated, and it was suggested that this should allow scope for content to be tailored to local circumstances.

Several planning authorities highlighted enforcement as a key element of the planning system that should be addressed by mandatory training. Respondents noted that elected members will not be directly involved in enforcement processes, but suggested that an understanding of enforcement will be important to ensure that elected members have a complete picture of the planning system.