« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
GETTING INVOLVED IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
CHAPTER SEVEN: COMMENTS ON RESOURCES
GENERAL COMMENTS
7.1 The invitation to comment at the beginning of the consultation document indicated that the measures in the paper were not intended to increase the regulatory burden on business or voluntary groups and that local authorities would be compensated for any new neighbour notification duties. However, the Executive indicated that they would welcome views on the question of the financial implications of any proposal contained in the paper. Many respondents took the opportunity to make comments on this issue. Most were related to specific questions in the document, but some also addressed the wider issue of planning department funding in general.
7.2 A number of respondents considered that there was a serious resource problem in managing the current planning system. One individual spoke of, "chronic under-funding" and another of, "over-stretched staff", and these views were shared by many from all stakeholder groups. There were feelings that authorities were being given increasing statutory commitments without a commensurate increase in budget. It was considered that this in part had led to delays, inconsistency in decisions and hence public mistrust of the planning system. A professional body drew attention to research in England which had identified a significant resource gap in planning departments, and generally it considered staffing levels across authorities to be down since local government re-organisation. Against this background, there was a call for a comprehensive review of local authority planning management and resources prior to the publication of any new Planning Bill.
7.3 Taking the consultation document proposals as a whole, a number of respondents, although especially local authorities, felt that they would not be neutral in resource terms but would have additional finance and staffing implications. A public body commented that,
"…involving the public in the planning system properly will be time consuming and require additional resources. The Executive should acknowledge this, give a clear indication of the extra resources required and explain how they would be funded."
This view was echoed by a response from the development industry, which considered that, if resources were not put in place, authorities would not be able to attract the quality of staff required to deliver the aims of the consultation document. One suggestion was that a complete overhaul of the fee structure and charges related to planning applications is required in order to increase significantly revenue for planning authorities. There was also a comment that such income needs to be "ring fenced" specifically for planning purposes.
7.4 However, some respondents considered, that not all of the anticipated extra expenditure needs would fall on local authorities. Community councils felt, and they were supported by some individual respondents, that they were being asked to get involved in more planning (and other) activities, but that their council grants were not sufficient for the purpose. There were also suggestions that the Scottish Executive should bear the cost of some of the measures proposed in the consultation paper such as Local Plan Inquiries and mediation services.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC MEASURES
7.5 Four of the consultation questions specifically referred to costs and funding but nine others also either prompted a significant number of observations about resource implications or involved new suggestions which would require additional finance. In general these comments have been incorporated into the earlier sections of this report and it is not intended to repeat them here. However, it may be useful to bring together the main areas of concern and summarise the key points made by respondents.
Local Planning Policy Forums (Q1)
7.6 The consultation document did not set out a prescribed model for a local planning policy forum and consequently, the number, composition and frequency of meetings could vary significantly from area to area. These differences would affect costs, but there was general agreement amongst respondents that there would be some resource implications in servicing the forums, which would probably fall on local authorities. If community councils and other local groups were to play a more active role, then their training and capacity building expenses would also have to be met. There was no consensus as to how this should be provided, although there were views that Planning Aid Scotland could have a role to play.
Notification of Plan Changes (Q2)
7.7 Much again would depend on the precise nature of what might eventually be agreed under this proposal. The consultation document explicitly suggested that because of the likely costs any procedures would be discretionary. On a broad definition of "notifiable interest" covering both policy and proposals, the task was considered to be substantial and very expensive. Even on a more limited scale, local authorities felt that their responsibilities would extend beyond most existing practice and would have workload and cost implications.
Local Plan Preparation and Adoption (Q3 and Q5)
7.8 A number of submissions made the point that the most effective way of having both better consultation and faster plan preparation was to have an adequately resourced local plan team. While the consultation document suggests that the costs of local plan inquiries should continue to be recovered from local authorities, there was a common view that they should either be wholly the responsibility of the Executive or shared between the Executive and local authorities. Suggestions were also made on how to improve local inquiry procedures which would have resource implications - these included better advertising and explanatory material, community group training and capacity building, and a programme officer dedicated to community advice.
Neighbour Notification (Q7, Q9, Q12, Q13 and Q28)
7.9 Neighbour notification was the most significant area of change proposed by the consultation document and it was clearly recognised that it would have to be properly resourced. A number of councils included in their submissions estimates of the likely increases in staff and other expenditure which they would require to undertake the new responsibilities. For smaller authorities this varied between 1-2 extra staff, while for the larger ones, estimates of up to 6 additional staff were suggested. There were views that in order to cover these costs and other associated expenditure, application fees may require to rise by in excess of 20%. There was support for the matter to be thoroughly researched, not only in the context of neighbour notification, but as mentioned above, as a means of better financing the whole planning function. However, there were clearly concerns from those who would have to pay application fees that any increases were kept to reasonable levels.
Improved Notification Information (Q10)
7.10 Although in relative terms this proposal was not generally perceived as imposing large additional resource requirements, there were some concerns about how many additional full or summary plans might be required to meet the suggested levels of detail for neighbour notification. There were issues to be resolved about whether it would be the applicant or local authority who would have the responsibility to provide these. If it were to be the latter under the proposed arrangements, then there could be significant extra costs.
Electronic Information (Q14 - 16, Q22a and Q32)
7.11 The consultation document was explicit in wishing to encourage the greater use of new technology in the planning process. Explicit reference was made to weekly lists and comment forms, while plans, other policy documents, applications, committee reports and decisions are in prospect, if not already achieved in some authorities. These were all widely welcomed by most respondents but the costs of the technology, systems and staffing were also mentioned quite frequently. There were views that the Executive should do more to encourage these developments by giving additional financial assistance to local authorities (and community councils) in support of its e-government initiative.
Departure Adverts (Q18)
7.12 Again this proposal was not perceived to be a major area of concern in resource terms and would in fact produce additional income for local authorities, if adopted. However, there were a range of comments raising issues about the basis of the charge and whether there would be a separate or consolidated fee rate. There were suggestions that this should also be looked at as part of the research on fee levels.
Publicising Comments and Decisions (Q21, Q22c, Q23 and Q24)
7.13 The information covered in these questions is currently only generally available in planning application files. Proposals to make this more widely available to people making representations and the population generally has implications for local authority resources, both in the potential loss of some income, where charges are currently made, and additional expenditure on copying or developing more user friendly formats.
Appeal Inquiries (Q27)
7.14 Many of the same resource issues were raised in connection with appeal inquiries as with local plan inquiries. However, further suggestions included; procedure booklets; community/individual training materials (videos etc); document copying facilities for local groups and the provision of a form of Legal Aid for third parties to enable them to engage legal and expert consultancy support. While there was no consensus on the matter, these were generally considered to be Scottish Executive responsibilities.
Mediation (Q29)
7.15 Ideas on how to fund any mediation service were canvassed directly in the consultation document. Again there was no consensus, but the parties most frequently mentioned in this context were the applicant/developer (35%) followed by the Scottish Executive (22%).
Planning Helplines (Q32)
7.16 The consultation document was not entirely clear as to what the shape of any future Scottish planning helpline network might be and whether there would be development costs at both the local and the national level. The commitment in the document was limited to examining how better co-ordination could be effected, if the proposal found support, however, a number of respondents did raise concerns about any associated workload and cost implications.
Planning Aid Scotland
7.17 Although there was no specific proposal in the consultation document regarding Planning Aid Scotland, it did raise the issue of putting the organisation on a more secure financial footing (paragraph 35). Planning Aid attracted widespread support from virtually all stakeholder groups for their current training, capacity building and advice activities. An expanded role in relation to the various measures in the consultation document, including the proposed national helpline system, was also suggested. Increased funding from the Scottish Executive and local authorities was seen as a necessary pre-requisite for these developments.
CONCLUSIONS
7.18 The measures in the consultation document do potentially have resource implications for a number of stakeholder groups in the planning process - the Scottish Executive, local authorities, community groups, Planning Aid Scotland and applicants. How substantial they might be for each party cannot be assessed without further detailed work. There is a commitment to look at this issue in relation to neighbour notification costs, but the consensus amongst respondents to the consultation exercise is that a wider review would be desirable, if not essential.
« Previous | Contents | Next »