Planning system - mandatory training for elected members: consultation analysis

5. How will the training be monitored?

5.1 Monitoring Completion

The consultation paper suggests that, in order to demonstrate that elected members have fulfilled the training requirements and are not prohibited from exercising the authorities specified planning functions, it will be important to establish and evidence that the specified training has been completed.

The proposal is that the completion of the training will be monitored by Local Authorities and that the training completion status of each elected member should be made publicly available. The consultation paper suggested that the most effective way of making this information publicly available is through individual Local Authorities' websites and by recording it within the Planning Performance Framework (PPF) Reports / statutory annual report.

Question 10: Should elected member's completion of the training be made available to the public?

Responses to Question 10 by respondent type are set out in Table 9.

20 of the 120 consultation respondents (17%) 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 (91%) agreed that elected member's completion of mandatory training should be made available to the public - the remaining 9% disagreed. This balance of views was very similar between organisations and individuals (91% and 90% respectively).

Please add any comment in support of your answer at Question 10.

Around 75 respondents provided further comment at Question 10.

Reasons for supporting the information being made public

Respondents who favoured elected member's completion of the training being made available to the public were most likely to refer to transparency, accountability and public trust or confidence in the planning system. There was also reference to the confidence of stakeholders, and planning officers and professionals. These considerations were mentioned by a range of respondents including planning authorities, other public bodies, planning/other professionals, private and third sector respondents, and individuals.

Further comments included that the approach could help avoid accusations that elected members are not fully aware of the system or competent to determine any application. There was also reference to it supporting monitoring and enforcement, and to publication helping avoid Environmental Information Regulations or Freedom of Information requests being made. However, there was also a view that the information should be publicly available by request, including because if the training is mandatory then it could be assumed that all Elected Members who participate in making planning decisions will have undertaken the training.

A number of respondents went on to make suggestions about the type of information that should be made available, or the arrangements and/or requirements that should be in place. On the latter point, there was reference to:

• The approach being overseen by a small group of Elected Members with some input by officials.
• Information being updated annually as a minimum.

In terms of the type of information that should be made available, suggestions included:

• A statement which sets out that elected members are assessed to be competent, rather than the specific training undertaken.
• The relevant accreditation period.
• For each elected member, the number of attempts it took them to pass and their score.

There was also a suggestion that those who have not completed training should be named, but also a contrasting view that it should not become an exercise in identifying individual elected members who have not completed the training.

Other comments or suggestions relating to the requirements and/or arrangements for the training included that:

• It should be a legislative requirement and should be built into local authority standing orders.
• Training should be completed as part of the induction or re-induction following election.

Reasons for not supporting the information being made public

Points raised by those who did not think the information should be made available to the public were sometimes similar to those who thought it should. For example, these respondents noted that, if the training is mandatory, then elected members cannot sit on planning applications committee or local review committees without having passed the training. Further comments included that publishing results for individual members could be seen as disproportionate to the outcome required.

Suggested alternatives included:

• (As above), that there should be no requirement to publish this information, but it should be available if a member of the public requests it.
• If the requirement is brought in, it should apply only to Committee and LRB members.
• Only the number of elected members who have completed the training should be made public, rather than individuals being named.

Question 11: If the completion of training is made public, do you think the information being provided within PPF / statutory annual reports and on the Local Authorities website are sufficient?

Responses to Question 11 by respondent type are set out in Table 10.

21 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

The majority of those who answered the question (77%) agreed that the information provided within PPF/statutory annual reports and on the local authority website are sufficient if elected member's completion of training is made available to the public - the remaining 23% disagreed. Organisations were more likely to agree that this information is sufficient; 84% of organisations compared with 66% of individuals.

If no, where should the information also be made available?

Around 55 respondents provided further comment at Question 11.

Reasons for thinking the approach would be sufficient

In addition to general comments in favour of the proposed approach it was suggested that it would be proportionate, would support monitoring and would allow for consistency in reporting across the country. It was also noted that the approach would enable publication in an existing reporting mechanism without the creation of another report solely tied to Elected Members training.

However, a small number of primarily planning authority respondents reiterated that they did not agree with a requirement for the completion of training to be made public (and hence had answered 'No' at the previous question); they noted that if the requirement is brought in, the PPF route would seem appropriate. Further comments from these respondents included that individual Local Authorities should decide if they want to publish the information and where it is published. A specific suggestion was that, if there is an existing method of reporting for other training requirements, such as that for licensing boards by local authorities, it would also make sense to mirror that approach. However, it was also noted that those approaches could vary according to local authority area.

Points raised about the type of information that should be published sometimes reflected those raised at the previous question, including that it would be sufficient to report statistical information, such as percentage or numbers of Elected Members who have completed the training, rather than listing individual names in the PPF or other annual reports.

Other suggestions about the type of information to be provided included that it should not be presented in a pass/fail format and that it would be sufficient to add text along the lines of "XXX has successfully competed training on the Scottish planning system". There was also reference to providing the date of completion of training.

Other suggestions related to other sources through which the information could or should be made available and included that:

• It could also be included as an appendix to any planning reports that are published for committee or LRB decision making. Private sector developers made this suggestion.
• Details of when the training was last completed should also be noted on Councillor information pages on the Council Website.

Finally, a Planning authority respondent reported that their Democratic Services maintain a register of all members' individual training and that completed training for planning could also be included in this register.

Reasons for thinking the approach would not be sufficient

Those who did not think the approach proposed would be sufficient generally suggested additional routes through which information should be made available. Reflecting the balance of views shown at Table 10, these were primarily private sector and individual respondents although a small number of planning authority and other public body respondents also suggested alternative approaches.

• On all agendas or minutes connected to planning decisions, for example through a link to the relevant information elsewhere on the website. There was also a suggestion that, in terms of making the information available on local authorities' websites, it should be on the Planning page.
• At each sitting of the Planning Committee and LRB.
• As part of a register of all member's completed training not only for planning but other relevant areas.
• In all staff governance committee papers.
• In public libraries and on all Council literature, such as newsletters.
• (As above), as part of the information on Elected Members provided on their local authorities' website. Through any publicity materials/websites of the Elected Members themselves. Also, as mandatory in election materials. Through a report to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO).
• On the Transforming Planning website.

5.2 Long-Term Monitoring of Impact

Question 12: Do you have any comments / suggestions on the best ways to monitor the long-term effects of the mandatory training of elected members?

Around 75 respondents made a comment at Question 12, with some respondents, including a small number of planning authorities, commenting on the challenges and/or potential difficulties around monitoring the long-term effects of mandatory training of elected members. It was noted, for example, that it would entail defining what 'better' planning decisions would be, as well as setting a standard against which they would be measured. The associated concern was that there may be a tension between decisions reflecting local interests - as expressed by Elected Members on planning committees - and the policy outcomes sought by the Scottish Government.

However, there was also a view, expressed by a small number of private sector developer respondents, that monitoring will be essential to ensure that the success, or not, of the mandatory Elected Member training is reviewed and acted upon. In terms of developing an approach, there were calls for the development industry, including representative bodies, to be involved.

In terms of the type of information that could be gathered, there was reference to gathering feedback from elected members, with suggestions that this might cover any topics it would be useful to add and any topics on which they require additional training.

There was also reference to gathering feedback from the public, and specifically users of planning services, for example by surveying planning customers about whether Elected Members had grasped the fundamentals of their case, and to consulting with Community Councils, and planning officers.

There were also a range of suggestions for possible performance indicators, including:

• Attendance by Elected Members at planning committee and the number of meetings held / decisions made. However, it was noted that it would be difficult to discern if any changes seen were due to the training provided rather than other influences.
• Planning decisions which passed but where there were objections as a percentage of total applications.
• The number of planning approvals that go against the advice of planning officers.
• The number of complaints that are made about a planning committee / LRB.

A number of the suggestions made related to appeals and challenges, including comments from a range of planning authority, planning professional, private and third sector respondents.

• The number of planning appeals, and especially those based on errors in the process. Planning decisions overturned on appeal. Specifically, the number of appeals being assessed by the DPEA each year that have committee decisions in direct opposition to the planning officer's recommendation.
• The percentage of successful appeals where expenses are awarded against the planning authority as a result of unreasonable decisions. However, it was also suggested that as numbers would be small, this would need to be undertaken at a national level in order to identify any meaningful trends and specific circumstances could skew the results.
• Successful court challenges (by statutory appeal or by judicial review against a planning authority decision). SPSO findings of member maladministration and Standards Commission for Scotland findings of breach of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

It was also suggested that DPEA cases on planning appeals could be reviewed to gain insight into the planning policies and justifications put forward for the planning authority, and the Reporters assessments, analysis and decision on these. It was thought that this approach could flag up areas where further focus or reworking of training is required.

A similar proposal was that a statistically significant representative sample of Scottish local authorities' decisions (which was anonymised and did not make direct reference to particular decisions) could be examined. A similar suggestion was to have an independent person review planning decisions made over a period of time before the training is undertaken, then have new planning decisions reviewed at intervals afterwards to see what changes occur.

Finally, it was noted that the new Planning Improvement Champion will also have a key role to play in monitoring the effectiveness of the mandatory training.