The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Question 8: Do you agree that planning authorities should have the flexibility to decide how best to serve neighbour notification?

A weakness of the existing arrangements is the lack of a duty to show proof of notification. This might be remedied by recorded delivery but there are problems associated with this method. There seems to be no foolproof way of notification and if the duty passes to planning authorities there may be no need to require one. We think that authorities should serve the notices in the way they think best, and that the method should not be prescribed.

Table 5.5: Views on whether local authorities should decide how to serve the notification

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 81%

5.28 Table 5.5 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Overall 62% of respondents supported the proposal with 31% expressing clear opposition. This is the second lowest level of approval for any of the questions in the consultation document. The "mixed" response to this question consisted of some "no comments", although mainly responses which identified arguments for and against change without coming to any conclusion. There was a reasonably high level of support (50%-71%) amongst most stakeholder groups on this question, with the exception of local authorities (28%).

5.29 This question was essentially seeking views on 2 matters: the extent of discretion allowable to local authorities in the method of service of neighbour notices (assuming responsibility was transferred) and; any comments on the relative advantages of different methods of service. A number of, mainly local authority, submissions qualified their response with the proviso that they did not support the transfer of responsibility in the first place, while others repeated concerns about the need to better define "notifiable interests" - generally to extend their coverage. These issues were addressed in Question 7.

5.30 On the issue of discretion, and notwithstanding the statistical analysis above, the written comments between those for and against the proposal were remarkably similar. There was near universal agreement on the need for simplicity and consistency, which required the definition of some minimum requirements by the Executive. There was support for local authorities to have the flexibility to go beyond this to suit their specific circumstances and for regulations to make clear what methods of notification were acceptable. There were widespread concerns that variations from council to council area could cause confusion and lack of confidence in the system, together with fears of legal challenge and referrals to the Ombudsman on the part of local authorities.

5.31 As one respondent put it, " a legal, timely, all-embracing and foolproof" method of actually serving the notice and identifying that it had been received, was what everyone wanted, but there was no consensus amongst consultees about the key elements of such a system. The views for and against recorded delivery letters largely echoed those in the consultation document and there were equally variant views about the reliability of general postal services. Various other methods, individually and in combination, were suggested and these included: hand delivery; notices in shops, post offices and libraries, local newspapers, site notices, pre-paid tear off cards; and freephone numbers. Some considered that more than one method should be used, while others thought they should vary depending on the type of application - with more extensive methods for larger developments. Several respondents thought that it would be helpful if notification included guidance on what constitutes a valid objection and clarification of the more limited scope of reserved matters objections.

5.32 A group of responses considered that since the matter was not straightforward, the identification of the most efficient and effective method(s) of securing proof of service should also be a matter for the further research identified under Question 7c. There was also support for the suggestion that once the Executive had come to a view on this matter they should issue guidance to authorities, in a PAN, or by some other means as well as modifying the General Development Procedure Order.

Question 9: Do you agree with keeping the duty to notify owners and occupiers and removing it for non-domestic lessees?

At present separate notices may be served on the owner, lessee and occupier of commercial premises, and on the owner and occupier of domestic properties. The current arrangements for domestic property should remain but to avoid serving three notices on commercial premises we suggest removing the duty to notify the lessee. We think that, in most cases, the notification arrangements for agricultural land should also follow this general rule. These changes would require amending Primary legislation.

5.33 Table 5.6 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. The wording of this question varied between the consultation document and the questionnaire and the former has been used in this table so that a "yes" supports a change in the "status quo". Only 18% of respondents supported the proposal with 78% expressing clear opposition. This is the only question in the consultation document which did not attract the support of the majority of respondents. The "mixed" response to this question consisted of mainly of "don't knows" and "no comments", together with some non-committal responses. There was a reasonably high level of opposition amongst all stakeholder groups to the proposal, varying from 100% amongst public body respondents to 62% from local authorities. The latter was the sector which saw the greatest advantages in the proposal.

Table 5.6 Views on removing the duty of notification for non-domestic lessees

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 79%

5.34 This question was described by one respondent as giving, "a clear indication of the undue complexities of the current system" while another felt that it highlighted the need for a review of the General Development Procedure Order . It was one of the most technical of the consultation questions, and while there were 317 responses, only 66 made written comments, of which 37 (56%) were from local authorities and other business/professional interests. The balance of views from those making comments was different from all respondents with 32% in favour of the change (mainly local authorities), 56% against and 12% expressing mixed views.

5.35 Proponents of the change considered that it would assist simplification of the system, reduce unnecessary burdens on those responsible for carrying out notification and promote greater consistency of approach. A typical view from the development industry was that this would be, "… a sensible streamlining of the process."

5.36 A small number supported the delivery of only one notice per property with obligations on recipients to notify other interested parties, and saw that in practice the lessee and the occupier were often the same. It was also pointed out that leasehold arrangements could be very complex, and if local authorities had to obtain the information on lessees it would be both time consuming and costly. Not having to undertake such searches would be an advantage. One respondent also thought that lessees may in any event have some protection through the terms of their leases, but it was also suggested that the advice of the Law Society should be sought before implementing any change.

5.37 Opinion against the proposal focused primarily on the right of those affected by proposed developments to be informed in advance and given the opportunity to comment. There were views from businesses that, "…a non-domestic lessee might be the party most affected by application proposals". Consequently, there were concerns about the potential lack of fairness in the proposal to change the procedures.

5.38 There was a view that the proposal ran counter to the main thrust of the review which was to encourage more involvement in the planning process, while others felt that a convincing case had not been made, and that on balance it was better to over-notify than not. One submission proposed that if the consultation proposal was implemented, there should be a requirement on owners/occupiers to notify other relevant parties. It was also recognised that there were resource implications associated with the proposal, and if local authorities were to be made responsible for notification, applicants should supply the relevant information. A group of responses considered that, in particular, agricultural land should be excluded from any change and needed a separate approach. Further research into the matter was called for by one respondent.

Question 10: Do you agree that notification should include the information and guidance described in paragraph 63 of the consultation document?

Research has shown that neighbours want more information with the notice and better accompanying plans. There is a limit to the additional amount of information which can be shown, but we think: the plan should be to scale; it should clearly show land proposed for development, further land under the applicant's control; and the location and dimensions of proposed extensions or new buildings. We would also like to see more guidance given with the notification, including: details of where plans may be inspected; how responses may be made; what constitutes a material consideration; what happens to written representation; a warning that applications may be amended before determination; and how feedback on representations will be made.

Table 5.7 Views on the information to be included with notification

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 80%

5.39 Table 5.7 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Overall 87% of respondents supported the proposal with only 7% expressing clear opposition. The 6% classified as giving a "mixed" response to this question consisted of mainly "don't knows" and "no comments", together with some partial support responses, particularly from local authorities. There was a high level of approval for the proposal, ranging from 62%-100%, amongst all stakeholder groups. Local authorities (38%) and businesses (27%) were the sectors with the greatest reservations.

5.40 The question was concerned with the amount of additional information which should be enclosed with the neighbour notification notice. Two types of information were suggested by the Executive (1) details about the proposed development (plans, etc.) and (2) additional guidance for those wishing to make representations. The was universal support for the proposals to improve guidance, the main differences amongst written submissions about the plan details - some agreeing with the Executive's proposals, others wanting more information and yet others less.

5.41 Support for the proposal was based on a variety of factors. Many community groups and members of the public thought that there was a lack of sufficient information at the moment and scope for great improvement. There was agreement amongst other groups that a clearer and more consistent approach was required; that this could improve community awareness of issues and may as a consequence reduce pressure on planning staff dealing with queries. One national voluntary organisation concluded,

"…the quality of notification is the key. Without useful information, the question of who is notified by whom is academic. We agree with the suggested minimum and strongly encourage greater guidance."

While, a private individual respondent considered that,

"One of the ways to increase public involvement in planning is by ensuring that planning processes and procedures are clearly explained and well understood. Providing adequate information about the planning application and guidance (as described in the consultation paper) is an important example of where this approach would be useful."

5.42 There were a number of suggestions as to how the guidance and plan information could be augmented. On the guidance, the following factors were suggested by several respondents:

• Office where detailed plans can be inspected, together with opening hours
• Case officers/contact ( name and telephone number)
• What constitutes a relevant objection and how to make an objection
• Time allowed for representations
• Rules on lobbying of councillors etc
• How planning applications are dealt with - committee/delegated matters
• Statement about good design.

It was also emphasised by some consultees that this should be in plain English and in a user-friendly format.

5.43 On the range of details which might be included on plans, there was greater variation in views. In addition to the suggestions in the consultation document respondees (mainly from the community) also proposed:

• Showing the location of any proposed building within the site
• Provision of block plans and building footprints
• 3D computer graphic plans/perspectives/elevations
• Description of proposed materials
• Access routes and location of existing services
• As much information as possible.

There were also views that the amount of information provided should vary between application types. For example, present information might be satisfactory for small householder applications, but more should be required for larger developments.

5.44 However, there were concerns, amongst those who supported the general thrust of the proposal, that notification information should not be seen as a substitute for inspecting the detailed plans. Local authorities were particularly worried about the logistics and costs if they were to assume responsibility for notification. Many indicated that applicants would have to be responsible for assembling and copying all the relevant plans. A recurrent theme was for any new procedures to be set out clearly in a revised Procedure Order and accompanied by national guidance. It was suggested that this should include the definition of what constitutes a valid application, the appropriate requirements for registration and the ability to amend the application title to make it more intelligible.

5.45 Many of the views expressed above were shared by those who opposed change or gave it qualified support. The over-riding considerations were that notification should not replace detailed examination nor overburden the process for applicants and authorities. As one planning consultant put it:

"Most applications for buildings use detailed drawings (typically 1:200 or 1:100) and it would not be practical to print off many copies for the sake of neighbour notification. It would be unreasonable for local planning authorities to produce such documents, and requesting applicants to provide these would add costs and cause additional delays."

5.46 The provision of additional copies of plans exercised a number of consultees; several felt that this could prove problematical, particularly in respect of small applications. There were also some concerns from a professional body about copying and breaches of copyright that may inevitably occur. Doubts were expressed, by some local authorities and professional interests, about the usefulness of some of the details that were suggested, in particular the extent of applicant's control over neighbouring land, and whether the proposed application details could be provided in a comprehensive yet concise form.

5.47 There was a general view, also supported by some who approved of change, that the desire for more and better information should not be met through the notification process but through more appropriate means. Making applications available on the internet was a common theme. As one individual put it,

"Getting to the local library or council office to inspect plans can be difficult for those in full-time employment and others…Could plans be scanned and posted (as pdf files or similar) on local authority websites?"

There were some concerns from other individuals and community groups that convenient, local availability of plans was not always good and that local libraries, community halls and community councils should, therefore, also be given copies.

Question 11: Do you agree with extending the time for responding to neighbour notification from 14 to 21 days?

Some individuals and community groups find it difficult to respond to a notice in 14 days currently permitted. This is a minimum period, during which the authority may not determine the application, and most accept representations beyond this. Our research indicated that neighbour notification was not considered to be a cause of delay in determining applications. The period for responding to notifications of owners and some advertisements is 21 days and we see merit in adopting this as the minimum standard.

5.48 Table 5.8 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. At 85% this question had one of the highest response rates of any in the consultation document. Again, there was strong support for the Executive's proposal with 80% of respondents expressing approval and only 7% indicating clear opposition. The 12% classified as giving a "mixed" response to this question consisted of some "don't knows" and "no comments", together with significant cluster of responses wanting a longer period, particularly amongst the public and voluntary groups. There was a consistently high level of approval for the proposal (ranging from 79% - 90%) amongst all stakeholder groups with the exception of local authorities (66%) and businesses (69%) which again were the sectors with the greatest reservations about aspects of the proposal.

Table 5.8 Views on extending the time for responding to notification to 21 days

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 85%

5.49 The main reasons cited in favour of the change were that difficulties were experienced at present as a result of holidays, frequency of community meetings, work away from home and unavailability of plans following notification. As one Community Council suggested:

"This would be a welcome increase in time as community organisations like our own find it difficult to have the required discussion time to meet the current deadline." (Community Council)

5.50 There were views from some local authorities that the change would encourage greater public involvement and that shorter periods lead to more unsubstantiated objections. Many thought that the different timescales were confusing and some that standardising all representation periods at 21 days would reduce public confusion. A few authorities already did this but would not accept late representations; others thought it would be useful to make clearer that the prescribed period was the minimum and that generally such representations would be taken into account, while one respondent suggested appropriate wording for such a notice.

5.51 A major concern of local authorities, both supporting and opposed to the change, was the impact it might have on their performance targets, especially the four-week period for the determination of householder applications. Some considered this would be exacerbated if local authorities were responsible for notification, which could only be done after the application had been validated. A few authorities had contrary views, believing that there would be no or minimal impact on performance times. Businesses supporting the change wanted assurances that it would not lead to delays. One authority, sensitive to legal challenges, was concerned that any changes were embodied in regulations and not simply encouraged as best practice.

5.52 As mentioned above, those opposed to change were concerned about delays to efficient and effective decision-making and as one business put it,

Any reforms of the planning system should aim to speed up the process while protecting clarity and certainty."

Those taking this view pointed out that the existing 14 day period was a minimum and in reality allowances were often made for holiday periods and most representations were accepted right up to the point of decision. There was also the suggestion that an increase in the period was not necessary given all the other improvements in communication such as websites, e-mails, helplines, customer contact centres etc. Consequently, standardisation on 14 days was advocated as the recommended option by this group of respondees.

5.53 Some respondents felt that even 21 days was insufficient, many of these recommended standardisation on 28 days and a few suggested even longer periods. A similar range of reasons were cited - the need for longer time for proper consideration, the fact that most community councils meet on a monthly basis and the trend towards longer holidays of 3 weeks and more.

5.54 A number of voluntary sector respondents and individuals supported an approach based on variable representation periods related to the type and scale of development proposed. As a national voluntary organisation indicated,

"..we would recommend that a further step be taken by recognising that different types of development might have different timetables for approval. For example there is no coherent reason why the consultation period for a minor household alteration…should have the same period as a major redevelopment scheme with significant environmental and amenity impacts."

Others suggested specific timescales such as 21 days for householder applications and 28 days for more complex developments. There was also a suggestion that where authorities had agreed time extensions with an applicant, community councils could negotiate extended consultation periods subject to providing proof that they had properly ascertained community opinion.

« Previous | Contents | Next »