Planning system - mandatory training for elected members: consultation analysis

4. How should the training be delivered?

4.1 Who will deliver the training?

The consultation paper notes that a range of different approaches could be used to deliver training to elected members, and sets out four potential options:

• Option 1: training developed and delivered in-person by each local authority, based on overarching key principles set out by the Scottish Government.
• Option 2 training content developed by the Scottish Government and delivered in-person by each local authority.
• Option 3 training delivered online, with the Scottish Government developing (or procuring) an online training course.
• Option 4 training delivered online, with the Scottish Government choosing a preferred training provider whom local authorities would appoint.

While noting that further work is required to determine the best option, the consultation paper indicates that the Scottish Government's preferred option is for training to be delivered online on a national scale.

Question 6: Which would be your preferred option for how the training could be delivered?

Responses to Question 6 by respondent type are set out in Table 6.

48 of the 120 consultation respondents (40%) did not answer this question and are not included in the results presented above. Percentages do not sum to 100% as respondents were able to select multiple options

Amongst the four proposed options for delivery of mandatory training, the most commonly supported were option 2 (preferred by 40%) and option 3 (39%). Fewer respondents preferred option 1 (13%) and option 4 (19%). In addition, 42% of those answering the question selected 'none of the above' - this rose to 48% of organisations who answered the question.

Please add any comment in support of your answer at Question 6.

Around 85 respondents provided further comment at Question 6.

Most of these respondents referred to one or more of the four options presented at Question 6, and these comments are summarised later in this section. However, respondents also commented more broadly on the key principles of how training should be delivered: for example, whether training should be in-person and/or online, and who should develop and deliver training content.

In-person or online training

A number of respondents expressed support for the online option preferred by the Scottish Government. These respondents suggested that online delivery would enable elected members to access training at a time that suits them, and would allow for training to be provided quickly where required, for example if elected members are appointed outwith the usual committee schedule. This included a view that a continuously accessible online resource would be useful, for example where elected members may wish to refresh their knowledge on specific topics throughout their term. Those in favour of online training also noted that this can still be 'live', allowing elected members to raise issues and interact with the training provider and other participants.

However, other respondents were of the view that online-only training will not deliver the required quality or depth of learning for elected members. This was linked to concerns that online training would deny elected members the opportunity to interact with training providers and share their experiences. Some suggested that any training delivery method must allow for participants to ask questions and raise issues. Those raising concerns around online-only options saw in-person training as a more effective approach in terms of engaging with elected members, including specific reference to this option providing scope for 'more interactive learning'. However, there were some concerns around the potential resourcing implications of an in-person approach, especially if planning authorities are required to deliver training.

How training content is developed and delivered

In terms of how training content is developed, there was support for the Scottish Government developing standard content to be delivered locally. This was seen as having benefits in terms of allowing planning authorities to focus their limited resources on identifying area-specific policies and issues. There was also support for this approach in ensuring consistency of training content across planning authorities, although several respondents wished to ensure that content would be developed in collaboration with planning authorities and other key stakeholders.

Other respondents – especially planning authorities - suggested that Scottish Government setting the key principles for training would be sufficient to ensure a consistent approach, and that this would allow authorities to ensure that content reflects their local context. This reflected a view that the planning priorities and challenges faced by elected members are likely to vary considerably across planning authorities. An approach based on planning authorities developing and delivering training content was also seen as having potential benefits in terms of encouraging elected members' attendance, enabling training to be more responsive to changing local contexts, and building relationships between planning officers and elected members. However, several respondents, including some planning authorities, questioned whether planning authorities would have the capacity to deliver in-person training. In this context, respondents welcomed the consultation paper reference to the need for further assessment of likely resourcing impacts.

Comments on specific proposed options

Reflecting the views noted above around how training should be delivered, respondents made a range of points in relation to each of the four delivery options set out in the consultation paper.

Option 1

Several planning authorities noted that option 1 (training developed by planning authorities on the basis of SG principles, delivered by planning authorities in-person) was their preferred approach. This included comments noting that this is the training model currently used for elected members. It was also suggested that this option would provide planning authorities with greater scope to tailor and augment content to local contexts, while ensuring some consistency of content through Scottish Government input. However, there was also concern around the impact of this option on limited planning authority resources, especially for rural and island authorities. This was seen as having potential to divert resources from the ongoing delivery of other discretionary training (e.g. in response to changing local planning policy).

Option 2

Support for option 2 (training developed by SG, delivered in-person by planning authorities) included comments from a number of private sector respondents around the consistency of approach ensured by Scottish Government developing training content. This approach was also seen as a more efficient use of resources, reducing the burden on planning authorities,

There was also support for in-person training provision as part of option 2, with this seen by some as essential to ensure genuine engagement and understanding for elected members. It was suggested that local delivery would provide an opportunity for planning officers to build relationships with elected members, although several private sector respondents suggested that training should be delivered by an external provider to ensure consistency of approach.

Those raising issues for option 2 included some who preferred option 1 on the basis that this would provide greater flexibility for planning authorities. It was noted that planning authorities may wish to retain some autonomy around how training is delivered in practice, for example choosing a mix of in-person and remote provision where this was better suited to local circumstances, or appointing a trainer to deliver the initial programme. There was concern around whether option 2 would allow sufficient scope for planning authorities to tailor training content. While it was noted that this option would place less demands on planning authorities than option 1, some repeated concerns around the potential to limit planning authorities' capacity to deliver other discretionary training.

Option 3

Those providing comment in support of option 3 (training developed by SG, delivered online for elected members to access directly) included a number of planning authorities and private sector respondents. The option was described by some planning authorities as likely to be the most flexible and cost-effective approach to deliver training at the scale required while minimising the risk of a lack of fully trained elected members delaying planning decisions. There was also reference to positives in terms of minimising the burden on planning authorities and enabling elected members to engage with training in their own time, and support for the option as ensuring the consistency of training content across planning authorities.

Concerns raised for option 3 were most commonly focused on the potential quality and impact of training delivered through an 'e-learning' model, especially the extent to which an online approach could still enable elected members to ask questions, raise issues and share experiences. Several respondents saw these as crucial elements in any training delivery model, and there was concern that option 3 would be lacking in this regard. Some noted that use of 'live' online training could help to address these concerns, and there was also a view that a robust approach to monitoring impact would be required to ensure an online model delivered meaningful training for elected members. On this basis, some suggested that online learning would be useful as a supplement to in-person training but did not support an online-only option.

Option 4

Comments in support of option 4 (SG procure an independent training provider, appointed by planning authorities to deliver training online) included a view that use of an independent provider would be a positive for the quality of training provision. Respondents contrasted this approach with option 3, suggesting that delivery by an independent provider would enable elected members to raise issues, ask questions and share their experiences with other participants.

Issues highlighted for option 4 included concern that selected training provider(s) may not be of sufficient quality, and that planning authorities would have no role in the procurement decision. Some also noted that their support for this option was based on the inclusion of a test element to monitor quality and impact. There were concerns that it may be difficult for a single provider to manage the pattern of demand from planning authorities, particularly as many authorities are likely to require training at the same time following elections. This was seen as increasing the risk of planning authorities not having sufficient numbers of trained elected members to make planning decisions, especially for smaller authorities who may be concerned that they would be 'at the back of the queue'. Questions were also raised around how training costs would be met under this model, and there was concern that this could be an additional cost for planning authorities at a time of significant budget restrictions.

'None of the above'

As noted at Table 6, a substantial proportion of respondents selected the 'none of the above' option. This included a small number indicating that they have no preference, or do not have a view on how training is provided. However, for others a 'none of the above' response appeared to reflect some of the concerns noted above in relation to specific options. For example, these respondents referred to resourcing for planning authorities in relation to options 1 and 2, and the importance of ensuring the selected approach can deliver the required training in a timely manner.

In the context of these concerns, some proposed approaches based on combining two or more options. This was most commonly in the form of 'hybrid' models that incorporate online and in-person delivery options, where planning authorities can select the option(s) that best suit their needs.

These proposals were also linked to a view that planning authorities are best placed to select an appropriate training delivery method. For example, it was noted that authorities may wish to take a different approach where a newly formed planning committee primarily comprises returning elected members, than for a committee of predominantly newly elected members. A 'hybrid' model was seen as offering benefits in terms of flexibility to suit local circumstances and elected members' learning preferences. For example, it was suggested that a 'live' online session may be preferable for elected members who are unable to attend a scheduled in-person session, while self-completion online sessions may be a suitable option where individuals require to access training through the year. However, it was noted that even a hybrid approach incorporating a significant online element will require sufficient resourcing to ensure a consistent quality of training experience.

Question 7: Do you have any further comments on how the training could be delivered?

Around 50 respondents answered Question 7.

Most of these respondents – especially planning authorities - reiterated points discussed above, including their preference for specific delivery options. This included reference to concerns around the effectiveness of online training, and the importance of providing an 'interactive' element for elected members to ask questions and raise issues. The importance of flexibility in the training delivery method was also repeated, including 'hybrid' options to better suit local contexts and elected members' learning styles. In this context it was also suggested that allowing planning authorities to continue to use existing training platforms would be beneficial.

A limited range of other issues were raised at this question – these are summarised below.

• A time limit on training sessions was proposed by some planning authorities to ensure their effectiveness, including a view that multiple shorter training sessions may be more practicable for elected members. However, a private sector respondent wished to ensure that sufficient time is made available to cover all of the proposed topic areas.
• A planning authority saw a need for the selected option to go beyond what planning authorities are currently equipped to provide, to deliver a genuine improvement in elected member training.
• A preference for a collaborative approach to development of training content was reflected in several other public bodies expressing an interest in contributing to this process.
• An other public body wished to see training materials published by planning authorities to ensure all relevant parties are aware of training content, and to support confidence in the process.
• A planning authority suggested a minimum period between publication of any new guidance and the implementation of mandatory training, for example to ensure continuity in decision making.

4.2 Test

The consultation paper notes that previous stakeholder engagement has shown strong support for a test element for planning training to demonstrate that the content has been properly understood. It is proposed that a multiple-choice test format should be used, with questions set once training content is finalised and following user testing. A minimum passing score would be agreed, with elected members able to retake the test until a pass is achieved.

Question 8: Should there be a requirement for elected members to have passed a test before being allowed to undertake a planning decision?

Responses to Question 8 by respondent type are set out in Table 7.

25 of the 120 consultation respondents (21%) 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 (83%) agreed with a requirement for elected members to have passed a test before being allowed to undertake a planning decision - the remaining 17% disagreed. Organisations (particularly planning authorities) were less likely than individuals to agree; the proposal was supported by 76% of organisations who answered the question, compared with 93% of individuals.

Please add any comment in support of your answer at Question 8.

Around 80 respondents provided further comment at Question 8.

Views on the use of a test

Reflecting the overall balance of views, the majority of those providing comment at Question 8 expressed their support for the principle of a test. This included a mix of planning authorities, planning/other professionals, private sector and third sector respondents.

These respondents supported use of a test to reinforce learning outcomes and to assess the impact of training in terms of improving elected members' understanding. Indeed, some planning authorities and private sector respondents saw a test as a crucial element in ensuring that mandatory training achieves the intended outcome in terms of ensuring elected members have a good understanding of the planning system and their role in it, and ultimately results in more consistent decision making. Some planning authorities drew parallels with use of testing in relation to other mandatory training, such as licensing.

Other potential benefits identified by respondents included helping to ensure that training is taken seriously by elected members, and identifying any consistent knowledge gaps to inform ongoing refinement of training content. It was suggested that use of a test may also help to support public confidence in training and elected members' decision making, as a demonstration of quality assurance.

Several respondents saw a test as especially important where elected members have completed their training online, reflecting concerns noted at Question 6 that online training may be less effective for some. One respondent specifically suggested that a test may not be necessary where training is provided in a live and/or in-person format.

Reasons for opposing the use of a test

Some of those providing comment raised concerns around the principle of a test as part of mandatory planning training. This included a view that a test may encourage participants to simply learn the key facts necessary to pass, and may not be effective in ensuring that elected members have a genuine understanding of the planning system and what is required for good planning decisions. There was also concern that a nationally-set test may mean that more localised issues will not be adequately addressed.

Reflecting these concerns, some expressed a preference for an approach based on continuous learning and assessment, rather than a single test. This included reference to existing training approaches having been effective without use of a test. It was also suggested that the effectiveness of training could be measured through ongoing assessment of the relevance of discussion at planning committees and/or the number of planning decisions that are successfully challenged.

The practicalities of a test

Respondents raised a number of points around the implementation of a test, including some who suggested that the consultation paper does not address key practical issues around how a test would be implemented. These comments most commonly related to the proposal that elected members would be able to retake the test until a pass is achieved, including comments that it will be important to enable tests to be retaken quickly. However, some saw a need for clear processes to deal with circumstances where an elected member fails the test on multiple occasions. This included several private sector respondents suggesting a cap on the number of times the test can be retaken, and/or other provisions for the test being failed multiple times, such as additional training or a minimum period before the test can be retaken.

Other points raised around the practical approach to a test included:

• The importance of carefully formulating any test to ensure it provides an accurate assessment of elected members' understanding. This included calls for tests to be inclusive for all abilities, with some expressing concern that the need to pass a test should not deter elected members accepting a place on the planning committee. It was suggested that local authority planning officers should have input to development of questions.
• It was suggested that a relatively short set of questions could be sufficient to ensure elected members have an understanding of key principles and aspects of the planning system.
• There was support for the multiple-choice format, although it was also suggested that this may not be sufficient to assess elected members' planning judgement. 'Scenario-based' or other qualitative question formats were proposed to better demonstrate that elected members can apply training to planning decisions.
• Some wished to see use of time-limited and/or 'closed book' testing to ensure this provides a true assessment of elected members' understanding.
• In terms of setting a pass level for the test, the benchmark of 80% used in relation to licensing board training was cited as a potential option.

4.2 Duration and Timing of Training

The consultation paper suggests that training should not place an unnecessary time burden on elected members. It is proposed that in-person training should require a half or full day, and no more than 3 hours for online training. The paper also notes that elected members could be required to retake training in full or complete a refresher course after a certain time period.

Question 9: How often should elected members be required to retake the training?

Responses to Question 9 by respondent type are set out in Table 8.

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

Amongst the proposed options for the frequency with which elected members should be required to retake training, the most commonly supported option was once every election cycle (preferred by 40%). A further 29% felt that training should be retaken every year, while 25% provided 'other' suggestions. This included proposals for a requirement for training to be retaken 2-3 times per election cycle, and/or for 'refresher' training to be taken annually or in response to relevant planning policy changes.

Please add any comment in support of your answer at Question 9.

Around 85 respondents provided further comment at Question 9.

The majority of those who provided comment expressed support for requiring elected members to retake training at specified periods. This was seen as important in ensuring that members' knowledge of planning legislation and policy remains current. It was noted that regular refreshment of training is standard Continuous Professional Development (CPD) practice across other policy areas and sectors where individuals require an up to date understanding of regulatory and legislative requirements.

Comments on specific proposed options

Support for training being undertaken once a year included private and third sector respondents highlighting the rate of change across the planning system over recent years. It was suggested that annual 'refresher' training would ensure that provision keeps pace with ongoing national and local planning policy developments, and would provide an opportunity to refine training in response to monitoring of impact for elected members. It was also noted that annual training would be consistentwith planning authorities' wider approach to CPD, although there were concerns that this could be too onerous for elected members and planning authorities.

In terms of training content, several respondents proposed that annual 'refresher' training should be relatively short, focusing on key principles and any relevant policy or legislation changes. This included reference to potential for more detailed training updates to be provided less frequently, such as at the start of every election cycle.

Requiring elected members to undertake training once an election cyclewas described by some planning authorities as a proportionate approach to minimise the administrative burden, while ensuring elected members have an up to date understanding of the planning policy context. It was also noted that this would be consistent with the approach to Licensing Board training.

Some planning authorities wished to see once-a-cycle mandatory training supported by more frequent local discretionary training delivered by planning authorities. It was also suggested that more frequent refresher training may be required for elected members who carry out their planning functions infrequently; for example, a short refresher was proposed where elected members have not been involved in a planning decision for a year or more. Some also wished to see elected members have access to online training materials throughout the year.

In terms of 'other' options for requiring elected members to retake training, alternative schedules proposed by respondents included at least twice per election cycle, and every two years. It was also suggested that the frequency of training should be linked to planning policy and regulation changes, rather than election cycle.

Several respondents suggested an approach that combines other options. For example, some proposed that comprehensive training should be delivered once every election cycle, and supported by less detailed 'refresher' training delivered more often (e.g. annually or at the mid-point of the election period). This included a suggestion that annual refresher training could be targeted to those who are involved with planning decisions less often.

Varying the frequency of training

A number of respondents highlighted potential circumstances where there may be a need to vary the frequency of training for elected members, including some who expected there to be a continued role for more frequent discretionary training delivered by planning authorities as part of ongoing CPD.

It was suggested that more frequent training may be required in some circumstances, especially if elected members are usually required to repeat training once an election cycle. This was most commonly suggested in relation to any significant change to national or local planning policy such as revisions to NPF4, issue of new planning circulars, or adoption of a new LDP. It was proposed that if an elected member undertakes training late in a council term (for example, if they are newly appointed to planning committee) then they could be excused from repeating this immediately following re-election.

It was also noted that more frequent targeted training could be required if ongoing monitoring identifies members who are not acting in accordance with their training. There were calls for a mechanism to identify the need for additional training in these and other relevant circumstances.