The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Question 15: Do you think local authorities should be able to decide themselves how best to publicise planning proposals?

There are 3 possible options. Keeping the present arrangement; giving each authority discretion to advertise or not; and retaining a reduced level of statutory advertising .Our research suggests that authorities should be given some flexibility regarding which methods to use in advertising proposals, depending on how effective newspaper advertising appeared locally as against other methods. However, the categories of proposals which must be advertised will not be changed.

5.88 Table 5.12 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 15 for each of the main stakeholder groupings. This question attracted the second lowest level of positive support for any of the Executive's proposals with 57% of respondents expressing approval while 32% indicated clear opposition. The 11% classified as giving a "mixed" response to this question consisted of some "don't knows" and "no comments", together with responses which again made comments without coming to a view. In 3 groups (local authorities, businesses and professional bodies) support ranged between 33% - 45%. The voluntary sector (63%) and public (59%) were the groups most supportive of the proposal.

Table 5.12 Views on discretion to local authorities in publicising planning proposals

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

5.89 The figures in Table 5.12 reflect the fact that there was some confusion and uncertainty about whether the question related only to the methods by which applications were to be publicised or to the categories of application which required to be publicised. The questionnaire did not have the explanatory paragraph which accompanied the question in the consultation document. Consequently there is a need for some caution in interpreting the responses.

5.90 Broadly speaking, 2 main issues dominated the responses. First, and most prominently, the issue of standardisation versus local discretion, and secondly, the merits of using newspapers rather than other means as the appropriate medium for disseminating information.

5.91 Overwhelmingly, respondents supported the notion of some degree of standardisation. This extended across all stakeholder groups and to those both for and against what they understood to be the proposal (which may have differed between respondents). There were, however, 2 different approaches to standardisation. The most prevalent interpretation was that there should be some form of national minima, but authorities could have the freedom to go beyond this if they chose. This stance was taken by those answering both "yes" and "no" to the question as well as some who had a "mixed" view. A typical response from this group was,

"A degree of discretion should exist for local authorities to use their knowledge of their area to utilise the best medium available. However, to ensure that there is a degree of consistency nationally, the requirement to advertise in the local press should be retained as a minimum." (Public Body)

5.92 Not all respondents in this group suggested what the minimum requirements should be, but suggestions included publishing the weekly list on the council website, retaining neighbour notification and site notices. Some consultees recommended that a range of options should be explored with the method related to the type and scale of development. There was also a view that advertising minor applications (conservation area and listed building consents) should be removed as a requirement. Generally, however, there was support for central direction either in the form of regulations, a code of practice or best practice guidance.

5.93 A subgroup of those opposed to the proposal for some local discretion took the view that there should be uniformity and consistency across Scotland in order to avoid confusion and misunderstandings. Voluntary sector and public respondents were most likely to support this view, and comments included:

"There is an absolute need for consistency of practice as regards publicising planning proposals locally." (National Amenity Body)

"Absolutely not - the public notification process needs to be homogeneous and accountable." (Private Individual)

However, while some supported the 'status quo', others considered that there should be a requirement to advertise all applications. Again there was a call for national guidance on the matter, which could include a more user-friendly format for statutory notices.

5.94 A final group of consultees fully supported discretion as being more responsive to local needs and familiar with the most cost effective local media. Several respondents repeated calls for more user-friendly information in plain English. There were suggestions related to this position, although not exclusively so, that authorities need to carry out research on the best methods and should consult locally (Forums, community councils etc) before finalising their approach. In this context, there was a recommendation by a national voluntary organisation that authorities should be required to prepare Publicity Schemes, which would set out the whole approach to keeping people informed of planning matters.

Question 16a: Do you agree that councils should regularly publish a notice explaining where copies of the weekly list can be viewed, and post the list on the internet?

Planning authorities prepare and circulate a weekly list of the planning applications they receive. The format and content varies between authorities. Most are sent to elected members and community councils, while some receive the list by subscription. Many are now posted on council websites. A regular block advert could have a strong public impact and could simplify existing procedures, but it could also be costly and distract attention from applications with a wider impact. Consequently, we are not recommending this but see merit in authorities circulating their weekly lists widely, posting them on the internet and explaining where they can be inspected.

5.95 Table 5.13 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 16a for each of the main stakeholder groupings. There was very strong support again for the Executive's proposal with 93% of respondents expressing approval and only 3% indicating clear opposition. The 4% classified as giving a "mixed" response to this question consisted almost entirely of "don't knows" and "no comments". There was a very high level of approval for the proposal (ranging from 80% - 100%) across all stakeholder groups. The only significant cluster of reservations/qualifications was from local authorities.

Table 5.13 Views on local authorities publicising where the weekly list can be viewed

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 83%

5.96 There was almost universal agreement amongst respondents that weekly lists were a very useful means of publicising planning applications. No one thought that this was a problem area, although opportunities for improvement were suggested both in terms of the range of recipients and the content. The main differences of view concerned the merits of the internet versus other methods of distribution and whether there was a need to indicate where access to the list could be obtained.

5.97 Many local councils indicated that they already posted their weekly list on the internet and those that didn't were happy to do so in future. There was overwhelming support for this approach from other stakeholder groups as well. Comments included;

"…planning authorities could provide weekly planning bulletins to cover planning and development issues, building warrants and road traffic orders/closures each week. This could be made available on the internet at minimal cost." (National Voluntary Body)

5.98 There was a strand of opinion which considered that the basic list could, with advantage, be broadened to cover other planning and development information. There were suggestions that the layout and content could usefully be improved so as amongst other things to be able to distinguish different types of application. It was also proposed that there should be a standard approach across all councils. On the wider use of new technology, the development of e-mail facilities and ability to view plans and drawings on-line, and track the progress and status of applications, were particularly mentioned by several respondents. One consultee thought that the creation of a national planning portal would be helpful in this context.

5.99 Many respondents who supported the use of the internet also considered that other methods should be used as well to ensure as wide a circulation as possible, but also because not everyone has access to or is familiar with the new technology. As one individual consultee put it,

"Weekly lists should be circulated widely as at present, be made available in public libraries, and published on the internet….I also recommend that advertisements are placed in local newspapers and in all planning leaflets and council documents, to inform the public of the existence of the weekly list and where it can be viewed."

Public Libraries were frequently mentioned as useful places to post information, and references to local council offices, health centres and local halls amongst others were also made occasionally.

5.100 A small number of respondents commented on the merits of block adverts in the local press on which there were differing views. Some thought that this would be useful in reaching a wider audience. This appeared to be an established and welcome feature in some areas, although in others (mainly urban areas) there was an issue about which local paper would be the most appropriate. A smaller group of consultees were opposed to the suggestion, primarily on additional cost grounds. One respondent queried why it was necessary to advertise applications of minor significance and suggested that this should be reviewed.

5.101 Overall, current practice was widely welcomed but so was the need to ensure better distribution and quality of information to a wider public audience. On this basis, while a group of respondents did not think it was necessary to indicate where access to weekly lists could be obtained, most consultees supported the idea as good practice.

Question 16b: Should such lists be distributed free of charge to amenity societies currently dependent upon the Edinburgh Gazette for information?

5.102 Table 5.14 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 16b for each of the main stakeholder groupings. This question had one of the lower response rates at 32%. There was strong support again for the Executive's proposal with 71% of respondents expressing approval although 12% did indicate clear opposition and 17% were classified as giving a "mixed" response. Support for the proposal was strongest amongst public bodies, professional interests, the voluntary sector and public. There were significant reservations/qualifications from business interests, although the numbers were small (9) and also from local authorities.

Table 5.14 Views on the free distribution of weekly lists to amenity bodies

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 32%

5.103 The majority of those responding did not make comments. Those doing so, did not give unequivocal support to the proposal. The most prevalent view was that amenity societies should get this information but it was likely to be provided free via the internet at present or else it would be in the near future. However, there were some views that regardless of internet access, paper copies should be provided. Some local authorities felt that it was reasonable to be able to charge for hard copies. There was a view that the needs of amenity societies should be discussed with them, while there was also a preference expressed for the Edinburgh Gazette or some other central register.

Question 17: Do you agree that the time for making representations in all cases should be extended to 21 days? EIA cases would continue to have 28 days.

The present period for making representations varies from 14 days to 21 days. Where an environmental statement (EIA) is involved the time is 28 days. A simple standard of 21 days would make it easier for some groups to respond on time but may also impact on performance. We think it important to standardise periods where possible and propose that all adverts (except EIA's) should refer to a 21 day period.

5.104 Table 5.15 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 17 for each of the main stakeholder groupings. There was strong support again for the Executive's proposal with 79% of respondents expressing approval only with 8% indicating clear opposition. The 14% classified as giving a "mixed" response were again a combination of "don't knows" and "no comments" but also a group of respondents who wanted a longer representation period. Support for the proposal was strong across all stakeholder groups but there were significant reservations/qualifications from businesses, professional interests, (although again the numbers here were small (9)) and local authorities.

Table 5.15 Views on extending the timescale for representations to 21 days

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 84%

5.105 The distribution of responses to this question was almost identical to those for Question 11 and, for those who made comments, much of the reasoning was similar. A large proportion favoured standardisation, as many non-planners found the current arrangements complex and confusing, although there was no universal agreement about the appropriate time period. While there were those who favoured standardising on 14 days, the greater body of responses was supportive of an increase in the time allowed for representations. Those expressing this view were almost equally split between those who agreed with the 21 days proposed by the Executive and those who considered that a period of 28 days, or in some instances, longer would be better.

5.106 Respondents favouring the 'status quo', or a common 14-day period across all consultation periods, generally expressed concerns about the potential delay to the process which any extension would cause. This was summed up by one local authority response which indicated that,

"More than any other proposal in the report, it is likely that this will have an adverse effect upon performance and consequently, on the quality of service to applicants."

There were also some views that there was not a problem with the current arrangements given that the prescribed period was the minimum, and that there were 14 clear days for responding. It was also felt that it was current practice to make allowance for exceptional circumstances such as holiday periods etc.

5.107 Support for some extension to the period for representations cited difficulties in respect of holidays, working away from home and the pressure on community groups to consult and respond properly in the time allowed. As one individual respondent described the problem,

"… for views of community groups…to be truly representative, there must be time to find out about the application, view the plans, arrange and undertake a site visit, reach a consensus, and write an objection, if required. All this to be done by people with jobs, families and commitments to run community groups."

Attention was also drawn to the failure of many statutory consultees to respond within the prescribed period. There were, nonetheless, some concerns from those supporting the change, about the potential impact of the change on performance and businesses were particularly keen to ensure that there was no delay to determination times. In this context, several respondents suggested that a maximum 'cut off' point should be defined, beyond which representations would not be accepted.

5.108 Many of the same points were made by those who considered 28 days or longer to be necessary for proper consideration of issues and more 'user-friendly' for community groups. Much of the support for this approach came from the voluntary sector and individuals. As with Question 11, there was also a cluster of responses supporting a variable approach whereby the period for representations would relate to the scale and complexity of the application. There were also some views that the period for EIA responses should be extended beyond 28 days, given the volume and range of the information they contain, although another consultee suggested that applications requiring an EIA were never determined within that period in any event.

« Previous | Contents | Next »