Reasons for delays with planning applications for housing

3 Stage 1 & Stage 2: Outputs and Analysis

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The research project was carried out on the basis of 101 applications determined within the first two Quarters of 2017-18. This has been amended to 100 applications as for one of the applications identified by Scottish Government, the online portal date noted was different to that on which the decision was made (decision notice).

3.1.2 A delay is noted when the determination of a Local Development takes more than two months and the determination of a Major Development takes more than four months.

3.1.3 The research identified primary and secondary reasons for delay. The primary reason is defined as that which is largely responsible for the application being determined past the statutory two month (Local Development) or four month (Major Development) timescale. The secondary reason is defined as that reason(s) which further protracts the determination process past the statutory determination timescale.

3.1.4 There were nine broad categories of reasons for delay noted during the collection of data for this research project, as listed below.

1. Legal Agreement (drafting / signing)
2. Committee Determination Required (outwith timescale)
3. Delayed Response by Applicant to additional information request
4. Delayed Action / Response by Planning officer
5. Delayed Action / Response by Other Council Officer
6. Delayed Response by Statutory Consultees
7. Applicant / agent asked for delay in decision making
8. Delays - planning authority availability / staffing
9. Other reason for delay

3.1.5 The results of the primary data collection exercise (web based, email questionnaire and telephone) are set out in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below and are discussed in detail in the following sections. This is based on a response from 56% of planning authorities and 23% of applicant / agents.

Figure 1 - Primary Reasons for Delay

Figure 2 Secondary Reasons for Delay

3.2 Legal Agreement (Drafting / Signing)

Application Review Summary

3.2.1 Of the 100 applications reviewed, it was noted that 53 were the subject of a legal agreement. The research identified that a legal agreement was the primary reason for delay on 9 occasions (9% of all applications and 17% of applications subject to legal agreement) and the secondary reason for delay on 44 occasions (44% of all applications and 83% of applications subject to legal agreement). Therefore, of the applications reviewed, when a legal agreement is required it has delayed the application process on all occasions.

3.2.2 The research notes the following examples of delays encountered during the legal agreement process:

• Lack of response from applicant regarding the signing of the legal agreement.
  • Did not want to enter into the legal agreement until a developer was on board
• Delayed service from the Council's legal team.
• Legal agreement negotiation (Viability assessment / financial obligation).
• Agreement of an applicant to pay a S69 agreement financial requirement before decision notice is released.

Discussion

3.2.3 The research undertaken highlighted that the legal agreement process associated with housing applications (generally Section 75 (S75), occasionally Section 69 (S69)) is time consuming. The S75 agreement is a staged process involving: agreement of Heads of Terms, negotiating the terms of the S75, signing the S75 and then registering it with the Land Registers of Scotland. The decision notice is generally not released until the S75 has been registered or the S69 financial requirement has been settled.

3.2.4 The research identifies that the legal agreement process commences, for the most part, post application consideration / determination. Given the involved nature of legal agreements noted above, the process has led to a delay in the determination of each application on a primary or secondary basis. See Figure 3 below.

3.2.5 The research identifies that a pro forma based approach for standard legal agreements appears to be the most straightforward solution to reducing application determination time. It is the case that Obligation requirements are generally set out within Local Development Plans and Supplementary Guidance and as such can be identified at the pre-application stage.

Figure 3: Legal Agreement Delays

3.3 Committee Determination Required

Application Review Summary

3.3.1 Of the 100 applications reviewed, it was noted that 34 were determined at planning committee. The research identified committee determination was the primary reason for delay on 3 occasions (3% of all applications and 9% of applications subject to committee determination) and the secondary reason for delay on 4 occasions (4% of all applications and 12% of applications subject to committee determination).

3.3.2 The research notes the following examples of when a committee determination is responsible for a delay in the application process (these are influenced by the Planning Authority's Scheme of Delegation):

• Objection received by a statutory consultee resulting in Local Development application being determined at committee rather than by delegated decision.
• No scope for application consideration at the next committee (Agenda issue).
• Objections / support can lead to committee determination where not otherwise required i.e. called in by local member or scheme of delegation requirement.

Discussion

3.3.3 A Planning Authority Scheme of Delegation sets out when a decision can be made by the appointed officer and when it should be made by Planning Committee. Committee determination generally includes a lead in time. This can include: draft report agreement, agenda planning meetings and final reporting prior to the application being determined at committee. See Figure 4 below.

3.3.4 From the research undertaken it is evident that committee determination becomes a delay factor in particular when a Local Development, with a two-month determination timescale, is referred to planning committee. Committee determination was noted as a secondary reason for delay when the committee preparation period overlaps the timescale for determination.

Figure 4: Committee Delays

3.4 Delayed Response by Applicant to Additional Information Requested

Application Review Summary

3.4.1 Of the 100 applications reviewed, the research identified that a delayed response by the applicant to additional information requests was the primary reason for delay on 42 occasions ( 42% of the applications reviewed) and the secondary reason for delay on 14 occasions ( 14% of the applications reviewed).

3.4.2 The research notes the following examples as typical reasons for a delayed response by an applicant:

• Alterations to proposals following consultation responses / objections.
• Noise Impact Assessment, Drainage / Flood Risk Assessment, Site Investigation, Tree Survey and other technical assessments which require commissioning, lead in time, site visit and reporting.
• Seasonal assessments i.e. bat surveys and breeding bird surveys.

Discussion

3.4.3 The research identified that where applications have been frontloaded it was less likely that additional information was required during the determination process. This is likely following pre-application discussion with planning officers and other consultees, who are aware of the site, the nature of development proposed and application requirements.

3.5 Delayed Action / Response by Planning Officer

Application Review Summary

3.5.1 Of the 100 applications reviewed, the research identified that a delayed response by the planning officer was the primary reason for delay on 14 occasions ( 14% of the applications reviewed) and the secondary reason for delay on 11 occasions ( 11% of the applications reviewed).

3.5.2 The research notes the following examples as typical reasons for delayed response by the planning officer:

• Information submitted was not reviewed in good time.
• Caseload reallocation issues.
• Additional information requested, and the application was left undetermined in the system while this information was awaited.
• Delay in sending out consultations to consultees.
• Delay in advertising an application.
• Delay in consideration of an application (application is contrary to Development Plan).

Discussion

3.5.3 Delayed responses or actions by a planning officer were noted by a number of Applicants / Agents as causing delay to the determination of an application. This reason for delay is closely linked to the 'Planning Authority Availability / Staffing' reason, as caseload pressures due to staffing numbers can be a cause for delayed action / response by a Planning Officer.

3.6 Delayed Action / Response by Other Council Officer or Statutory Consultee

Application Review Summary

3.6.1 Of the 100 applications reviewed, the research noted that a delayed response by another council officer was noted as the primary reason for delay on 14 occasions ( 14% of the applications reviewed) and as the secondary reason for delay on 9 occasions ( 9% of the applications reviewed).

3.6.2 Statutory consultees were noted as the primary reason for delay on 1 occasion ( 1% of the applications reviewed) and identified as the secondary reason for delay on 0 occasion ( 0% of the applications reviewed).

3.6.3 The research notes the following examples as typical reasons for delayed response / action by other council officers and statutory consultees:

• Planning officer delay in consultation.
• Confusion over information submitted.
• Staffing issues / part time working – more difficult to get hold of Officer / obtain a response.
• Loss of technical expertise within the Council ( e.g. Landscape Architects, Conservation Officers, Flood Risk) and therefore a reliance on external consultants adding to the time to obtain information.
• Caseload pressures.

Discussion

3.6.4 The research identified that a timely response from another council officer or statutory consultee was facilitated when application information was robust and clear. It was also facilitated when consultation requests were sent out on time, shortly after validation.

3.7 Applicant / Agent asked for delay in decision making

Application Review Summary

3.7.1 Of the 100 applications reviewed, the research noted that a request was made for a delay in the decision-making process as the primary reason for delay on
1 occasion ( 1% of the time) and as the secondary reason for delay on 1 occasion ( 1% of the time).

3.7.2 The research identified the following examples of reasons Applicants have asked for a delay in decision making:

• To allow additional time to explore alternative solutions.
• To allow additional time to undertake further assessment prior to committee determination.

Discussion

3.7.3 Although the research noted a direct request for the delay in the determination of an application on two occasions only, it is often the case that an applicant / agent will agree (formally / informally) to an extension to determination timescales.

3.8 Planning Authority Availability / Staffing

Application Review Summary

3.8.1 Of the 100 applications reviewed, the research noted that planning authority staffing was noted as the primary reason for delay on 7 occasions ( 7% of the time) as the secondary reason for delay on 4 occasions ( 4% of the time).

Discussion

3.8.2 The research identified that a lack of planning authority staff resulted in caseload pressures which often led to delays in the determination of applications. This reason for delay is closely linked to the 'Delayed Action / Response by a Planning Officer / Other Council Officer' reason, often a knock-on effect of caseload pressures.

3.9 Other Reasons for Delay

Application Review Summary

3.9.1 Of the 100 applications reviewed, the research noted a number of other reasons for delay, not referenced above. The 'Other' reasons for delay were noted as the primary reason for delay on 9 occasions ( 9% of the time) and as the secondary reason for delay on 5 occasions ( 5% of the time).

3.9.2 The research identified the following examples of other reasons for a delay in decision making:

• Non-statutory consultee
  • Absence of robust pre-application discussions.
  • Not signed up to statutory planning authority timescales i.e. Local Airport
• Procedural matters.
• Complicated legal background and PPP masterplan context.
• Officers content to leave application in system until LDP adopted.
• Admin error, decision notice re-issued.
• Thought the application was withdrawn.
• Applicant requested the application be put on hold pending consideration of representations that would be made in support of the site re-designation as a housing site in the forthcoming LDP.
• LDP Reporter site consideration.
• Once timescale not met less incentive for officer to determine.
• Applicant unwilling to enter into Section 75 agreement at PPP stage when proposals were still indicative.

Discussion

3.9.3 Due to broad and varied circumstances that impact the determination of housing applications, there are a number of applications that have not fallen comfortably within the eight aforementioned categories. These are reflective of the breadth of factors involved in making a planning decision.