« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONTEXT
The Getting Involved in Planning consultation paper was published in November 2001 by the Scottish Executive Development Department. Responses were invited from stakeholders on 32 specific questions to which replies were requested by 31 st March 2002. This was subsequently extended to the 26 th April.
Over 10,000 Getting Involved in Planning consultation documents, questionnaires and easy-read booklets were issued in November 2001 to a wide variety of organisations and individuals. The 3 formats were also accessed by respondents through the SEDD website. The consultation document contained 32 numbered questions and a total of 402 responses had been received by the end of April 2002. The distribution of responses was weighted towards the voluntary sector and public categories, which accounted for 81% of all returns. Nonetheless, it is considered that a reasonable cross section of interested opinion was received from a range of stakeholder interests. Respondents were asked whether they had had previous contact with planning and overwhelmingly the majority (89%) was from groups and individuals who were familiar with the system.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND METHODS
The main purpose of the research project was to provide an analysis of the comments received to the consultation paper so as to provide feedback, which could inform decisions on the best way forward.
Responses were inserted into a consultation database containing text and numerical fields relating to the 6 main respondent categories which had been identified (local authorities; public bodies; businesses and trade organisations, professional organisations; voluntary bodies and individuals) and to each of the 32 consultation document questions. Additional fields were created to cover other points made which were not in the consultation document. This enabled statistical tables to be created and response rates to be calculated, as well as in depth qualitative analysis of each question to be carried out.
Comments on the Consultation Exercise
The consultation exercise was welcomed by most of the respondents in each of the stakeholder groupings. There was recognition that the paper raised issues of current importance regarding the transparency, accountability and efficiency of the system and that improvements in these areas were vital for increasing public confidence. Reasons in support of the review included problems of delay and bureaucracy; a system lacking resources and under pressure and one which was not "fit for purpose" and in need of radical overhaul. Respondents did not generally comment on the scope of the review, but the small number who did tended to be concerned about what they saw as a fragmented approach to modernising the planning system.
General Observations on Involvement in Planning
Some stakeholders queried whether there was a widespread desire for greater involvement, while others saw this as part of a broader approach to increased citizen participation in government. More effective involvement was not only a matter of better information and procedures, but also required increased capacity building amongst participants. There were tensions between greater involvement and speeding up the process which would require to be managed and issues regarding available resources for effective implementation. The specific proposal to set up local policy planning forums had broad stakeholder group support subject to clarification of their remit, status, composition and resourcing.
Involvement in Development Planning
The principle of giving people early warning of changes to plans which might affect them was generally supported. The specific proposal regarding notification of those directly affected was very popular with the voluntary sector and public respondents, but authorities were concerned about the practicalities of the process. The 2 measures intended to strengthen the independence of the Reporter were very well supported by all groups, and it was thought that they would help to build more public confidence in the system. There was, however, little support for the suggestion that costs would continue to be recovered from local authorities, with the more prevalent view that this should be an Executive responsibility.
There was a wide range of suggestions on how to make local plan adoption both faster and more user-friendly, although some did doubt that this was possible. Recommendations on how to speed the process up focused on reducing the number of consultation stages, shorter plans focusing on key issues, the wider use of model policies and better project management with tighter deadlines. A more user-friendly approach required early effective engagement with the community and other stakeholders, the use of simple, jargon-free language in documents and meetings, greater use of the internet, together with more guidance and assistance with procedures. It was considered that Public Local Inquires (PLIs) should be less legal and adversarial, and the location, timing and layout of venues for inquiries need to be more convenient for the community.
INVOLVEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Applying for Planning Permission
There was widespread support for the introduction of a standard application form, written in plain English and with easy-read guidance notes. It was felt that there should be wide consultation on the design and content and a pilot exercise should be undertaken before full implementation.
Publicising Development
The proposal to transfer the duty of general neighbour notification from applicants to local authorities was the most controversial measure in the consultation document. There was a high level of support amongst most stakeholder groups but many local authorities were opposed to, or had serious reservations about, the proposal based on logistical and resource problems.
There was a large majority opposed to the possible exclusion of non-domestic lessees from notification arrangements on the grounds that those likely to be affected by proposed developments should be informed and given the opportunity to comment.
Proposals to extend the scope of notification to some advertisements and to enforcement notices and to encourage greater publicity to be given to enforcement action was strongly supported. However, local authorities and businesses were divided on the need and efficacy of the proposals. There were views that people likely to be affected by development extended beyond the current "neighbour" definition and that wider notification/publicity would be desirable. Some local authorities queried whether there was a useful distinction to be made between notification and general publicity and that consequently, advertising all applications might be the more effective strategy.
A recurrent theme in voluntary sector and individual responses was that the information supplied under existing arrangements (application forms, notifications, site notices, weekly lists, and statutory adverts etc.) was generally inadequate in both form and content. There were pleas again for greater use of plain English and simplicity of layout wherever possible. Various methods of disseminating information about proposed development were referred to in the consultation but there was no consensus on what would be most effective in any given circumstances. The general view was that there should be consistent approaches and responsibilities across all notification and advertisement procedures.
Submitting Views and Getting Feedback
There was a high level of support for the consultation document recommendation of standardisation on a 21-day consultation period for responding to neighbour notification and statutory advertisements, except for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) cases. This would overcome difficulties arising from holidays, frequency of community council meetings etc and reduce public confusion over different time scales.
All stakeholder groups agreed that it would be helpful to have standard ways to make comments on applications electronically, subject to a number of technical matters being resolved and other conventional means remaining available. There was also support, although not so universal, for a national form for comments with some element of flexibility to respond to local circumstances. Proposals to make official consultation responses publicly available immediately and other responses in due course attracted high levels of cross sector support on the grounds of openness and transparency, although there were some concerns about confidentiality and possible applicant pressure/harassment.
Information and feedback on decisions was generally considered to be poor. There was almost universal support for the consultation document proposals for improvement, but a need for further clarification of both the form and content of the proposed reports on decision factors and reasons. While posting on the web was felt to be the long-term solution, in the interim the information needed to be available from council offices and local libraries.
Resolving Objections
There was substantial agreement, except from business and professional respondents, with the Executive's proposal to reduce the period for making appeals to 2 months. It was felt that this would reduce uncertainty and speed up the overall process. Those voluntary sector and individual respondents who made additional comments, felt that they had no effective remedies in the face of bad planning decisions. There were calls for the Executive to consider this issue further.
There was a majority view that mediation in planning was worth trying as an additional option in some dispute resolution circumstances. Many practical issues needed to be resolved prior to implementation and further evaluation of the possibilities via a pilot exercise was suggested.
NATIONAL CO-ORDINATION
The proposals for a national consultative group and electronic opportunities working group were both well supported. Key concerns were that they should involve a wide mix of interests and have clear, task-focused remits.
The general view of respondents was that the co-ordination of local and national helpline services was a sensible proposal, which would provide a measure of consistency and should be explored further. Many operational issues needed to be resolved, including the role of Planning Aid Scotland in this area of work.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
Many of the proposed measures would require additional expenditure, mainly for local authorities but also potentially for the Executive, applicants and community groups. There was strong support for the activities of Planning Aid Scotland and agreement that the organisation should be put on a firmer financial footing to enable it to expand its advice and capacity building activities.
It was generally recognised that the transfer of neighbour notification duties would have the most significant cost implications and the need to look at fees in this context was widely supported. However, given some views that the planning service as a whole is under-funded and the fact that other measures in the consultation paper have resource implications, a wider review of funding than that proposed was also suggested.
CONCLUSIONS
While much was currently being done to involve people in planning, many felt that some practices and procedures were not especially helpful. The majority of the proposals in the consultation document focused on improving the quality of involvement and consequently attracted strong support, particularly from voluntary sector and individual respondents.
However, the aims of the package of measures in the consultation document were not only to build greater involvement and consensus into planning but to do so without holding up decision-making. While this issue was not examined in great detail, opportunities to speed up plan-making and appeal processes and make others more efficient by using new technology were identified. Overall, it is not possible to draw conclusions in advance of decisions on the detail of some of the proposals as to whether the twin objectives can be achieved. However, a critical factor in this context is likely to be the resources made available for implementation.
« Previous | Contents | Next »