The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

CHAPTER THREE: GENERAL INVOLVEMENT ISSUES

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

3.1 Stakeholders made a number of general comments on the issue of involvement in planning. These are summarised below, but most are also dealt with in more detail elsewhere within the report. First, there were a number of queries and observations about the overall objectives of encouraging more involvement in the planning system, given that a range of opportunities presently exist. One professional body asked,

" Do the public in fact wish greater involvement or do they wish the current arrangements to be carried out better in terms of efficiency, openness and accountability?…Will greater public involvement lead to greater public expectation of the influence they can have?"

3.2 Associated with this was the view that public involvement in planning should not be seen as separate from the wider context of involvement in other local issues such as education or health and citizen participation in government generally. A local enterprise company suggested that,

" Community planning may provide the broad framework for community engagement, but for involvement to be meaningful people need to see the sorts of things they are being asked to get involved in.".

A local voluntary organisation considered that public involvement was a vital area for development as,

" …civic participation in strategic planning at local level (with a degree of empowerment) is key to developing greater community pride and commitment."

However, there were also concerns that it is all those in a community who are heard and not, as one private individual respondent put it,

" … just the 'vocal minority' who speak the loudest".

One respondent also noted that there was a good fit between the Executive's approach on this issue and the more widely based Active Communities Strategy.

3.3 A number of respondents from different stakeholder groups drew attention to the apparent tension between encouraging greater involvement and speeding up the planning process. As one development company observed,

"There is a well publicised contradiction between the need to speed up the planning system and the requirement to increase public participation in decision making."

A public body considered that trade-offs would be necessary between these 2 objectives but expressed disappointment that consideration had not been given to,

"…h ow community engagement focused changes will impact on planning decision times." and urged that , " A sense of realism must exist about what can be achieved."

3.4 There were strong business concerns that any improvements to the arrangements for involvement were not at the expense of further delay, greater uncertainty and increased burdens on applicants. One retailer summed this up in the comment,

" …any reform should not increase the regulatory burden on business"…it should, ".. meet the objectives of speed, transparency, consistency and flexibility, within the context of full and appropriate public involvement."

A number of development industry respondents expressed similar views, which amongst other things, highlighted the need to: set and achieve strict timetables; streamline systems and, " strip out any unnecessary bureaucracy from the planning process."

3.5 Linked to this issue was the question of resources which attracted comments from a wide range of interests. The matter is dealt with in more detail in Chapter Seven but the heart of the issue is summarised in the comment from one professional body which concluded that,

" ..it must be recognised that widespread involvement and response provision is an expensive process. There is no attempt in the document to quantify or cost the additional bureaucratic burden of these proposals…"

Another professional organisation emphasised in this context that a review of the number, quality and effectiveness of local authority staff was necessary.

3.6 There was a strong theme running through many submissions about the need to develop the capacity for more effective involvement. Private individuals thought that planning procedures were hard to understand and very time consuming . A local conservation group was concerned about the lack of understanding about the planning process, while a national voluntary organisation was clear that advice and training were necessary for people, groups and communities to engage fully in the planning process. There was also the view from local authorities and others that understanding by the community was required as a basis for involvement.

3.7 In this context there was also a significant body of representations about the role of Community Councils in the planning process. This is looked at in more detail at the end of this chapter, but it is relevant to note here that there were a number of general observations regarding the lack of recognition of the current role of Community Councils in planning, and the need for them to be better resourced if they are to have an expanded role, as well as some concerns about their representativeness.

CONTACT WITH PLANNING

3.8 One of the aims of the Public Involvement in Planning research programme is to get the views of people who have, and those who have not, been involved in the planning process. The consultation questionnaire provided the opportunity for respondents to indicate whether they had had any contact with planning and to make any comments about that contact. A few respondents who did not use the questionnaire also answered this question.

3.9 Table 3.1 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Unsurprisingly, nearly 90% of respondents had had previous contact with the planning system. The weakest levels of contact were amongst voluntary sector and public respondents, but these were not significant overall. Clearly, the overwhelming response was from groups and individuals who were familiar with the planning system.

Table 3.1 Stakeholder Contact with the Planning System

Note 1: The overall response rate for this question was 100%
Note 2: The percentages against stakeholders (in this table and from herein after) represent the level of support within each stakeholder group

3.10 Relatively few respondents (35) made comments about their previous contact with planning and these were almost exclusively from the voluntary sector and the public. Two thirds of the comments were negative and included views that the process was cumbersome, inefficient and unresponsive to local needs, and that decisions had already been made or were arbitrary. A number of the positive comments recognised that planning authorities were doing their best, but were struggling with a high workload and understaffing.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FORUMS

3.11 The first question in the consultation document was a general one about making the planning service more accessible and keeping it under regular review. It was recognised by the Executive that many customer care initiatives had been implemented by councils, but that more needed to be done. In particular, there needed to be an emphasis on involving people earlier in the process and on a more continuous basis, with clearer arrangements for feedback and regular review. There was also a need to help community groups develop the capacity to take part in the planning process more effectively.

Question 1: We think councils should consider setting up local planning policy forums to consider planning issues and build up local interest and expertise. Do you agree?

The Executive considers that local forums could be used to encourage dialogue and build up local interest and expertise in planning policy issues and implementation. They could deal with all aspects of the planning service in an area. No indication was given regarding their organisation, but it was thought community councils would provide the best starting point.

3.12 Table 3.2 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Overall 72% of respondents supported the proposal with only 15% expressing clear opposition. The 13% classified as giving a "mixed" response did not directly answer the question, giving reasons both for and against the proposal. Support was strongest amongst public bodies (90%) and varied between 64% and 80% in other groups with a balance in favour of the proposal. Businesses did not generally support forums with 78% expressing reservations and there were also mixed views amongst local authorities with only 47% in favour.

Table 3.2 Views on the setting up of local planning policy forums

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 87%

3.13 Much of the support was in principle subject to details being worked out. Equally, many of the same considerations were raised by respondents who were alternatively for and against the proposal, they differed only in the weight they placed on the various factors which were felt to be relevant. Consistent themes throughout were the need to be clear about the inter-related factors of: remit, status, composition, coverage, training and resourcing of forums before being able to conclude whether they would be acceptable and effective.

3.14 There was considerable variation amongst consultees on the issue of remit. Some respondents, particularly those from the business sector considered that forum should:

"…have only limited and clearly defined tasks which are not duplicated by other initiatives." (National Retailer)

Alternatively, there was another prominent set of views which envisaged forums developing within a family of community planning consultative mechanisms. This was expressed by one respondent, who was particularly referring to rural areas, in the following terms:

"…it will be important that such fora are not just restricted to discussing planning matters but are able to take a more integrated approach to the range of development, land use and management issues which are of relevance to them." (Public Body)

3.15 There were also differing views about the range of planning matters which might be considered. Some agreed with the consultation document that the forums could cover "all aspects of the planning service", others that they would be likely to be most useful in developing policy and strategy. There was a concern that they should not cover development control, which may prove a distraction, while it would be useful to include project implementation. In general, it appeared that it was accepted that this was a matter which would require to be worked out prior to their formation.

3.16 Questions were raised about the status of the proposed forums. Many were concerned about the relationship to existing consultative mechanisms and the need to ensure that they did not cause duplication or further confusion amongst stakeholders. Typical concerns included the role of forums about the existing community council network (this was particularly prominent) and the "fit" both with established decentralisation mechanisms (Area Forums) and emerging community planning consultative arrangements (Community Forums, Citizens Panels etc). A local authority was concerned that:

" The status of such forums is an issue: for example, in the case of a difference of opinion between a forum and the local community council on a planning matter, to which view should the planning authority attach the most weight?

There were some views that standard size, remit and composition were not to be encouraged and one local voluntary body recognised the diversity of options available, concluding that:

" …the role and structure of these forums will differ according to local circumstances and priorities. On the one hand it could be a sub-committee of the Community Council. On the other it could be a Town Trust."

3.17 Views varied about other aspects related to the status of the forums. It was felt by some that the forums should be organised and serviced by local authorities. However, the more prevalent opinion was the contrary one, in order to establish independence and be able to hold councils to account. There was also the suggestion that there should be an independent chairperson. A voluntary body considered that forums should, " have specified decision-making powers - financial or otherwise." While a planning consultant equally felt that, " mechanisms for input to the planning process should be clearly defined". A number of community councils felt that the establishment of forums should not be optional and the Executive should make it a requirement, and one local voluntary organisation went further and suggested that the system should be policed by a Local Government Inspectorate.

3.18 It was widely recognised that the composition of forums could be problematical. In general there was support for a wide range of interests to be involved and also for the need to ensure that the forums were not dominated by groups and individuals with specific agendas. A local authority was particularly concerned that measures were put in place to ensure that the forums were truly representative of local interests and not just a platform for single issue or pressure groups. There were particular fears in the business community that the forums may be unrepresentative and likely to be anti development.

3.19 Some voluntary bodies and other groups felt that it would be inappropriate to base forums exclusively on community councils, as it was considered that they were not always representative, and consequently, amenity and voluntary bodies should also be actively involved. Disability interests were equally keen that local Access Panels were represented on the forums. There were also views that this was an opportunity to bring new people into the system and not just those who were already involved. As a national voluntary organisation put it the " focus needs to be placed on involving hard to reach groups in the forums".

3.20 Linked to the remit and composition of forums was the issue of coverage. Issues which attracted most comment, but on which there was no consensus, included: whether there should be only one for each local authority area or a number; what 'local' means in this context; whether they should be organised on a geographic or thematic basis; and whether they should consist of groupings of community councils.

3.21 There was, however, broad agreement, from the supporters of forums, across all stakeholder groups that a major exercise in capacity building would be required to underpin the initiative. Many groups spoke of the difficulties of getting people involved except where their own interests were directly affected, while local authorities pointed out the difficulties in sustaining interest and involvement. Training and other support for forum members was seen as essential by many respondents. As stated by a Public Body respondent,

" while providing a the opportunity for involvement is important this must be provided alongside capacity building to allow communities to fully engage in the process."

There were some views that Planning Aid Scotland would be an appropriate organisation to assist with this development process.

3.22 It was almost universally recognised that setting up and supporting forums would have resource implications. This would include financial costs as well as staff time and that these, " additional burdens" as one respondent put it, would not just fall on local authorities but other participants as well. One individual respondent was concerned that forums would, " further overload community councils", while a local organisation was clear that they, " will need a budget to cover the costs of running such a process". There was, however, no agreement about where the funding should come from.

3.23 Those opposed to the proposal stressed that various forums, including community councils, already exist and it was considered that a new set would only add to bureaucracy and confusion. There were concerns, especially from business interests about potential delays to decision-making, increased burdens and the fact that forums may encourage vested interests opposed to development. Community groups and individuals tended to take an opposite view, that the forums would be toothless, talking shops and there would be no point in participating as opinions expressed would just be ignored.

3.24 The balance of responses was clearly in favour of the forums, subject to much of the detail being clarified. There were a number of examples of current practice (most notably the Edinburgh Civic Forum) cited as working well, and there were views that it would be sensible to see what lessons may be learned from existing initiatives before proceeding to implement any proposal. In particular, a professional body suggested that the Scottish Executive should audit current practice and issue Best Practice Guidance on how to proceed.

THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY COUNCILS

3.25 The consultation document suggested that local community councils, "will usually provide the best starting point" for the consideration of new arrangements to involve more people in the planning process. One quarter of all the responses to the consultation were made by community councils and many of the submissions from the other stakeholder groups commented on the community council role as well. This section summarises the views that were expressed on this issue and identifies the main themes.

3.26 A number of respondents drew attention to the potentially more active role of community councils in 'neighbourhood planning' and one drew attention to the Mackintosh Report's call for more local accountability. One community council was concerned that the term, "community" was being misused and should have a statutory definition as, " the territory of a community council". Community planning, in their view, should therefore apply at the level of community councils and not at the level of the local authority as at present.

3.27 A response from the academic community, with particular interests in the development of community councils, recognised that there were concerns about their representativeness and the extent to which they genuinely ascertained local views on issues. They suggested that community councils should periodically carry out a consultation on local priorities and produce their own policies with the guidance and support of their local planning officer . The academics suggested that if such an enhanced role for community councils were to be acceptable, it should be incorporated in primary legislation.

3.28 In order to enable community councils to better undertake their existing and any enhanced role, the need for more and better training was cited frequently by respondents. One community council suggested that,

"A continuous training programme would be needed to keep non professionals up to speed. Planning Aid and the Association of Community Councils could provide this."

Lack of resources was also cited by a number of community councils as inhibiting their effectiveness. Current grants from local authorities were seen as inadequate and funding by the Executive was suggested.

3.29 A number of more specific suggestions were made by community councils as to how their role could be enhanced within the planning process. A major concern was that their views appeared to have little impact on the final decision. A way to improve this was suggested by one response from a community council which took the view that,

"The biggest advance for community councils would be to give them a vote on the Planning Committee for their area. At the moment they are a nuisance without any real teeth, a talking shop without power. A vote would make community councils able to shape the future for their communities."

There were also suggestions that community councils should have speaking rights at Planning Committee and also a plea for early involvement in the planning process, particularly in relation to pre-application discussions with prospective developers.

OTHER GENERAL INVOLVEMENT ISSUES

Good Practice in Involvement

3.30 A national voluntary agency drew attention to the fact that 'community' like consumers does not refer to a homogeneous group and it is not always straightforward to obtain the views of and involve certain groups. They considered that it was possible to maximise the quantity and quality of community involvement and participation by consultation and improved representation. There is a need to remove the barriers to these two processes with commitment and resources. Key factors identified by the agency, in this context were:

• the need for a two way process of communication
• focusing on relevant issues and relevant groups
• stimulating for consultees - making use of interactive methods
• informative - providing consultees with good feedback
• inclusive - ensuring all relevant groups or sub-groups are given equal opportunity
• involvement at the earliest opportunity in the process
• enough time, resources and training to properly participate
• access to necessary information in a relevant format
• availability of a range of mechanisms for submitting responses.

3.31 A few respondents also highlighted the advantages of the early involvement of young people in the planning system, which they considered to be critical to improving community involvement in planning over the long term. It was suggested that understanding of the Planning System could be incorporated into the curriculum, as in some European countries.

Involvement in National Planning

3.32 The consultation document did not address the issue of National Planning, although it was considered in the Review of Strategic Planning. One planning authority representative considered that the process at national level was one of consultation not participation. While welcoming the moves to improve involvement set out in the Strategic Planning Review there was concern that the process would need further development in relation to "bottom up" approaches to the preparation of the National Spatial Perspective/Framework. A local amenity body also sought a greater role for amenity bodies in influencing national policy to balance what they saw as the current influence of the development industry.

The Role of MSP's in Planning

3.33 An MSP responding to the consultation document raised the issue of the their role in the planning system. The MSP suggested that a more formal role should be given serious consideration where any application referred to Ministers should be forwarded to the appropriate constituency MSP. Planning issues formed a major proportion of constituency enquiries and the MSP had found that the present system was less than satisfactory in being able to track progress.

Other Issues

3.34 Two other general involvement issues were raised directly by a community council and supported by implication in many other submissions. On the first issue, there was a need for local authority planners to have a clear obligation to advise the public on how to involve themselves in local planning issues (e.g. how to lodge representations) irrespective of whether these views are inconvenient to, or opposed by, the local authority. The second issue set out the council's view that effective public consultation and meaningful involvement in the process was frustrated by the complexity of the planning system and that by implication, simplification of the system would assist the objective of encouraging more active participation.

« Previous | Contents | Next »