The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Question 22a: Should there be standard ways to make comments on applications electronically?

People submit objections and representations to planning applications brought to their attention by a variety of means. Until now views have usually been submitted by post. An issue for consideration is whether it should be possible to submit comments electronically.

5.131 Table 5.20 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 22a for each of the main stakeholder groupings. This question attracted a very high degree of positive support, with 87% of respondents expressing approval, and 10% indicating clear opposition. There was a small number of "mixed" responses (3%), which consisted largely of the usual "don't know" or non-committal responses. Support for the proposal was strong across all stakeholder groups, ranging from 80%-100% with the main reservations coming from the voluntary sector and individuals.

Table 5.20 Views on the ability to submit views electronically

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

5.132 Most respondents saw advantages in this suggestion and typical comments referred to: the ease of submission, especially for those in rural areas; encouraging greater participation; maximising the time available for commenting; the potential for speeding up the process; and the fact that it was cheaper than other methods. A number of councils had already implemented this system while another commented that,

"…this will depend upon having compatible technology across authorities with a link to a central planning portal."

The need to develop the technology and systems which might be both internet and e-mail based, could handle large volumes of data, send and receive acknowledgements and address the issue of validation were frequently mentioned. There were some calls from authorities for additional resources to assist these developments.

5.133 Concerns about verifying the identity of the senders of representations and the acceptability of comments from outwith the local area were recurrent themes. These and other matters lead to comments from authorities, and some other respondents, that an appropriate legislative/regulatory framework, set of information protocols and standard procedures should be developed, as well as the production of best practice advice. It was suggested that this should be the role of the Executive and should form part of the remit of the e-planning group.

5.134 There was no suggestion in the consultation document that electronic media should be the only way to submit representations, Many emphasised the need for other methods to continue.

"Standard electronic systems should be one of the formats provided, among the alternative formats of large print, braille etc. Electronic formats can increase the accessibility of documents but rely on the interested parties having the necessary equipment and knowledge." (National Voluntary Organisation)

Relatively limited general public access to new technology was mentioned by several respondents, although another consultee thought that public libraries and other public places now often provided such opportunities.

5.135 Limited opposition to the proposal largely centred around the lack of universal access to the internet, the technical problems of verifying the identity of those sending comments and hence potential for abuse. As one local authority put it,

"It is possible that an unscrupulous person could generate a large number of submissions each of which appeared to be from a separate individual."

There was also a view that the process would be too costly to develop and a plea that it was necessary to retain the option of submitting paper copies of representations.

Question 22b: Should there be a national form for comments?

People submit objections and representations to planning applications brought to their attention by a variety of means. An issue for consideration is whether there should be a national form for comments?

5.136 Table 5.21 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 22b for each of the main stakeholder groupings. This question attracted a relatively mixed level of support, with 68% of respondents expressing approval, 24% indicating clear opposition, and 8% giving a "mixed" response. The latter tended to make partially related comments or saw merits and demerits in the proposal. Support for a national form was strong across most stakeholder groups, ranging from 75%-89%, with the main reservations coming from local authorities (38% in support) and to a lesser extent, the voluntary sector (64% support).

Table 5.21 Views on whether there should be a national form for comments

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

5.137 There was some confusion about this question. While it was apparent to respondents that a standard national comments form was being suggested it was not clear whether this was intended to be mandatory or discretionary and whether it would be available in electronic and/or other formats.

5.138 It appeared that most respondents felt that this was being suggested in a multi-media format and as such it was broadly welcomed subject to some concerns about its form and status. Many thought that the proposal would lead to greater consistency, would help simplify/streamline the representation process and hence encourage responses as well as saving time. It was suggested that, given a structured layout and guidance notes on the key areas of importance (including what constitutes a 'material consideration'), this could help support a more effective decision-making process. As one individual commented,

"A well thought out standard form would make it easier to respond and it could be sent out with neighbour notifications and copies could be held by local groups, post offices and shops etc."

5.139 The concerns about format included the need not to be too restrictive, with some element of flexibility to cope with different local circumstances. A potential specification was set out in one community council's comments,

"A national form should be very user-friendly, jargon-free, meet plain English standards and allow a degree of flexibility in responses. It should be available in a number of languages as appropriate."

There were frequent references to the need for the form to be well designed, clearly laid out, simple and accessible with sufficient scope for comments which don't fit into pre-set boxes. Where an electronic format was used, the need for appropriate technological developments and validation procedures were repeated. One consultee suggested that it should be piloted first.

5.140 It was not clear whether those supporting the form thought it should be mandatory, but there were many who emphasised the need to accept other, non-standard methods of representation. There was also those supporting a discretionary approach by authorities to the use of such a form.

5.141.There was substantial opposition to the concept of a national form from local authorities and this was supported to some degree by local voluntary groups who were concerned about its potential impact on their ability to make the range of comments they might wish. A typical comment in this context was,

"Standard forms tend to be restrictive and should be optional if used at all. Guidance from Planning Aid, better education on planning and how to object, could achieve better results and be more helpful to the planning process." (Community Council)

5.142 There were concerns that a standard approach would be too bureaucratic and prescriptive which might lead people into giving certain responses and, consequently, it would serve no useful purpose. Some responses considered that, given the differing range of circumstances across Scotland and all the different types of potential development it would be impossible to devise a form which suited all. If there was to be a form, some felt it should be developed by each authority for their own area, others that guidance on how to submit relevant objections and other procedures would be all that was necessary.

Question 22c: Should the comments be publicly available?

People submit objections and representations to planning applications brought to their attention by a variety of means. Respondents are often informed that their comments will become publicly available when decisions are made on the relevant application. An issue for consideration is whether they should be openly accessible, and publicly available as soon as they are lodged rather than when Committee papers are published? We know that some issues can be sensitive and we do not propose changes to the handling of correspondence in connection with other matters such as enforcement where there can be a need for greater confidentiality.

5.143 Table 5.22 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 22c for each of the main stakeholder groupings. This question once again attracted a relatively high level of support, with 85% of respondents expressing approval, 9% indicating clear opposition, and 6% giving a "mixed" response. Support for public availability was strong across all stakeholder groups, ranging from 81%-100%, with the main reservations coming from individual respondents where 19% had some doubts or queries about the early disclosure.

Table 5.22 Views on whether comments should be made publicly available

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

5.144 There was support again for a more transparent procedure which would enhance public confidence. Strong support for the proposal was qualified by some concerns about confidentiality. A recurrent theme was the need to remove the name and address from any application file reference - this appeared to be standard practice in many authorities. Alternative suggestions put forward in this context were the need obtain the consent of those submitting comments/representations prior to any public release, or to summarise them in some way so that individuals could not be identified. It was felt that whatever method was adopted should be made clear on application forms and in the press. Clear guidance from the Executive on these matters was considered to be necessary.

5.145 The arguments against early disclosure also covered similar ground to Question 21. The main concerns expressed by consultees in this group was applicant pressure on, or even intimidation of, objectors and possible further delays in the process, if several rounds of negotiations between applicants and third parties were to be encouraged. Further assessment of the proposal was called for by one respondent.

Question 23: Do you agree that the full record of relevant factors in deciding applications, and the reasons for decisions, should always be publicly available?

People are often unsure how far their comments have been brought to the attention of decision-makers and taken into account. Whether or not applications go before a committee, we suggest that a report recording the consultation responses, development plan and other material considerations and reasons for the decision should be made publicly available

5.146 Table 5.23 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 23 for each of the main stakeholder groupings. This question had the second highest response rate of any question and also the second highest level of support, with 96% of respondents expressing approval. Only 1% indicated clear opposition, and 3% giving a "mixed" response. Support for the proposal was consequently, very strong across all stakeholder groups, ranging from 86%-100%, with a relatively small group of queries and concerns coming from local authorities.

Table 5.23 Views on public availability of factors involved and reasons for decisions

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 86%

5.147 In support of the Executive's proposal, a recurrent theme was the need to make the planning system more open, transparent and accountable, and in this context the suggested change was considered to be positive and useful. Some community groups and individuals thought that councils were not were not particularly good at giving feedback on decisions, that publicising the decision reasons would allay suspicions of collusion and help restore public confidence in the system. A local voluntary organisation expressed the views of many respondents in stating that the proposal,

"… would assist the community to understand why a particular decision was made, and increase awareness of the planning process."

However, there were a few community respondents who felt that there was a need to be able to

comment on the report before a decision was made and suggested that the committee documents should be sent to them before the meeting.

5.148 Many councils were already implementing some of the proposals, but practice was described by a national voluntary agency as, "variable and inconsistent". Existing committee reports generally fulfilled the suggested requirement, although some councils queried the meaning of the phrase, "full". The main area of potential difficulty was in respect of delegated decisions, where some produced full reports and others used shortened pro-formas. It was not clear whether the latter would be considered adequate and, if they were required to be made more substantial, then this would have staff resource implications and a potential impact on performance indicators.

5.149 There was strong support for reports to be available on council websites but also sent to those who had made representations in hard copy or by e-mail. A number of community groups and individuals called for reports to be written in, "clear and precise language", and for technical details to be made intelligible. Another recurrent theme was the need for best practice guidance from the Executive, particularly on issues such as what kind of confidential matters might be excluded from reports and how to record decisions approved contrary to officer recommendations.

5.150 Very few respondents were opposed to the proposal but there were a few comments which were not directly related to the question posed. There was a cluster of responses from community-based respondees expressing concern about the whole issue of delegated decisions, with one view that all decisions should be made by committee. The proposal that community councils be given the power to request site visits was also repeated.

Question 24: We think the full text of planning decisions should be available from the council so that people can take copies without undue difficulty or expense. Do you agree?

A planning application is not determined until a decision notice has been signed and decisions should be notified as soon as possible after that. Posting decisions, and the reasons for them on the weekly list and on the planning authority's website can be effective in informing interested parties promptly.

5.151 Table 5.24 shows the breakdown of responses to Question 24 for each of the main stakeholder groupings. This question had the highest level of support of any in the consultation document, with 98% of respondents expressing approval. Only 1% indicated clear opposition, and 1% gave a "mixed" response. Support for the proposal was consequently, very strong across all stakeholder groups, ranging from 83%-100%.

Table 5.24 Views on the availability of the full text of planning decisions

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

5.152 Question 24 overlaps and extends the approach set out in Question 23 and there was a certain element of duplication in responses, particularly about the advantages set out in paragraph 5.144. Widespread support in principle from local authorities was qualified by queries and concerns about some of the practicalities. Clarification was sought by some as to what was to be made available - whether the decision notice itself or officers reports were to be included as well, since they provided the information on how the decision was reached. There were some views that this would be impractical due to the size of the reports and the volume of applications. An occasional view from some community representatives was that a summary of the decision would be adequate, although different suggestions, including one page summaries and even shorter reports attached to the weekly list were made. An individual respondent thought that they should,

"…provide a clear, concise account of the reasons for planning approvals or rejections. This should help demystify the planning system in the eyes of the public and go some way to removing distrust."

5.153 Points about media availability also largely followed the comments in paragraph 5.147, with widespread recognition that posting on the web was the long-term solution. Some community councils thought that the information should be sent to them, and there were also suggestions about making it available in libraries and local council offices. In some councils decision notices were sent to those making objections/representations free of charge, but the general practice was to make a charge (figures ranging from 20 - 30 were mentioned) for third parties. The issue of charges was a recurrent theme from local authorities and there were views that this should properly reflect the true costs, given the significant resource implications, although most recognised it was desirable for them to be "reasonable". There were suggestions that the cost could be averaged over application fees and an alternative that low cost photocopying facilities in planning offices would suffice. One professional body made a plea for consistency across authorities in both fees and practice.

« Previous | Contents | Next »