« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
1.1 The consultation paper, Getting Involved in Planning, the focus of which was the enhancement of public participation in the planning system, posed the question, "How can we make appeal inquiries more accessible and less intimidating?" 1 The consultation paper, Modernising Public Local Inquiries, which forms part of the Executive's broader proposals for modernising the planning system for the 21 st Century, is to a large extent intended to develop the question posed in Getting Involved in Planning 2. The aims of Modernising Public Local Inquiries are (1) to maintain the strengths of the current system of appeals whilst enabling decisions to be made quickly so as not to disadvantage the economy and (2) also at the same time enabling those interested in a proposal to make their views known and have them taken into account without being intimidated by the process 3. The Executive has indicated that both aims are critical to its objectives for social justice in the planning system and that the challenge is to secure the second aim without prejudicing the first 4.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1.2 The Scottish Executive indicated in the consultation paper that it wished to improve the experience of the public when involved in the consideration of a planning proposal at a public local inquiry whether as an appellant, supporter, or objector. This, it noted, would require change in the culture of the inquiry itself; the actions of reporters; and the rights and obligations of the parties involved. Inevitably, it would require parties to inquiries to be prepared to engage cooperatively in reaching the best planning solution. The consultation paper is viewed as an important step towards encouraging external participation and engagement in re-designing and modernising the delivery of this important service. The Executive considered that the proposals in the paper have the potential to reduce inquiry costs and provide better control over expenditure.
1.3 The Executive has made clear that because there is much that remains effective within the present system they considered that it was essential that the review introduced change only where it was needed and where there was a clear advantage for the public interest. In this modernisation the Executive was seeking to:
- strive for greater certainty about timescales, procedures and parties' responsibilities at every stage of the process;
- achieve better consistency of approach across parties' legal entitlements;
- create a system focused on the public interest and that is less susceptible to abuse;
- process cases more quickly;
- seek more focused evidence and submissions from all parties; and
- produce shorter, more focused, decisions and reports to the Scottish Ministers 5.
The Executive also noted that the core principles of openness, fairness, and impartiality established by the Franks Committee in its 1957 Report "Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries" remained central to public local inquiries and continued to guide reporters in the conduct of cases 6.
This project was therefore designed to provide analysis of the consultee responses bearing in mind the objectives of the Executive set out above and the core principles identified by the Franks Committee.
RESEARCH METHODS
1.4 Since the consultation paper, Modernising Public Local Inquiries, was located within the wider framework of review of the planning system currently taking place, built in more detail on an issue consulted on in Getting Involved in Planning and indeed shared some of the latter's aims, ie making public involvement easier, it seemed appropriate to utilise similar methods of analysis to those employed in the analysis of responses to that consultation 7.
1.5 A consultation database similar to that developed to facilitate the analysis of responses to the consultation paper, Getting Involved in Planning, was created. This contained the list of consultees from whom responses were received.
1.6 Responses were either scanned or, where that was not possible, manually put into electronic format. The text of the responses was then transferred into the appropriate field of the database. Care was taken to ensure that where it was necessary to summarise a respondent's views, the essence of their point(s) was communicated accurately. Creation of the database also facilitated extraction of relevant material for inclusion in both the report and the digest of responses as appropriate.
1.7 The use of a consultation database facilitated some basic quantitative analysis of responses to the consultation. This analysis focused both on responses to the questions overall (ie numbers and percentages of respondents in total and by stakeholder group answering each question) 8 and in detail (eg numbers and percentages of respondents in total and by stakeholder group favouring or not favouring the proposals contained in a particular question) 9.
1.8 As with Getting Involved in Planning, most of the questions posed in Modernising Public Local Inquiries did permit a "yes" or "no" answer 10. The methodology employed in Getting Involved in Planning - Analysis of Responses has been followed with regard to quantitative analysis of responses to the questions posed where the questions permit a "yes" or "no" answer 11. In such cases this involved ascribing responses to one of the following response fields: "yes", "no" or "mixed". It was inevitable that some respondents did not clearly answer a question "yes" or "no" and might have mixed views on a proposal or might support a proposal in principle but had concerns about the detail of what was proposed. Where there were different parts to a question (as with question 3), one of which permits a "yes" or "no" response, the question has been broken down into its constituent parts so that quantitative analysis of the part which permits a "yes" or "no" answer is possible. This question also permitted modified quantitative analysis of the responses to the second part of the question, involving the respondents indicating a preference for a particular option. Therefore, where questions do permit of "yes" or "no" answers tables have been included breaking down the number and percentage of responses in total and by stakeholder groups who gave "yes", "no" or "mixed" responses. In some cases the response field into which a response fell was not absolutely clear and judgment has been exercised. This means that the quantitative analysis must be viewed with some caution for that reason and also because of the relatively small number of responses from most stakeholder groups with the exception of local authorities. Nonetheless the quantitative analysis is considered to be sufficiently sound to be broadly indicative of the range of views received.
1.9 The foundation for the qualitative analysis to be employed involved (1) detailed reading of the comments made by the respondents; and (2) entering them where appropriate in the field for the response to a particular question on the database. This involved a judgment if the respondent did not indicate which question was being answered. General points or points not directly raised by the consultation paper were also made and these needed to be ascribed to the appropriate field of the database.
1.10 While the quantitative analysis provided a superficial indication that, for example, a majority of respondents were in favour of a proposal, nonetheless many of those respondents qualified their responses. Qualitative analysis was therefore employed to examine in detail the comments made in the responses to identify significant and/or recurring qualifications so that the quantitative data could therefore be understood in its proper and more limited context.
1.11 In more general terms, qualitative analysis was employed to examine the reasons which respondents gave for their various responses - and to note where reasons were not given. Although several respondents might, for example, have supported a particular proposal, their reasons for doing so might differ and it was considered important that such differences were highlighted. Qualitative analysis has also been used to distinguish the responses in terms of the classification of stakeholder groups employed, particularly so that variations in responses by sector could be highlighted.
1.12 Where respondents noted the merits of proposals contained in questions these have been identified and a range of views presented, again with any distinctions between stakeholder groups being noted. Any contradictory views on the merits of proposals have been highlighted.
1.13 Where respondents made general responses to the qualitative questions (eg question 22) or raised issues not directly raised by the consultation paper, qualitative analysis was used to identify key emergent or recurring themes and issues and responses have been grouped around these themes or issues in chapters 4 and 9 of report.
1.14 Qualitative analysis has thus not been used to present a comprehensive picture (that is done by means of the accompanying digest) but rather to present an overall picture of the range and depth of respondents' views. In particular it has been used to identify key issues raised by respondents, the principal reasons for respondents' views, respondents' views of the merits of proposals and to highlight key variations and inconsistencies between stakeholder groups. It has also been used to highlight cases where certain stakeholder groups have remained silent on particular issues and, in addition, to qualify, where necessary, the quantitative analysis. In all cases a range of quotations from the responses has been used to illustrate themes, reasons, views of the merits of proposals.
1.15 Finally, although the qualitative analysis enabled the number of respondents identifying each theme to be calculated, it was inappropriate to present that data quantitatively for reasons which include the fact that some organisational responses might present the views of a number of individuals or more than one organisation, making it impossible to count the number of people represented; respondents to a consultation such as this "opt in" and cannot be assumed to be necessarily representative of their stakeholder group. For these reasons, there is no specific reference to the number of respondents making specific comments, although broad patterns have been highlighted.
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
1.16 This chapter has set out the background to the project, its principal objectives and the research methods employed. The remainder of the report deals with the following matters:
Chapter 2. The Consultation Exercise. This contains a discussion of the overall response, the classification of the stakeholder groups and an analysis of their overall response and response to each question.
Chapter 3. General issues relating to public local inquiries arising out of the responses. The general comments made by the respondents are considered in this chapter.
Chapter 4. Building on the strengths of what we do now contains a systematic discussion of the answers to questions 1-3. A standard format is adopted which begins with a statistical profile of the responses, identifies common themes relating to the opinions expressed and highlights any alternative or variant proposals which may have been put forward.
Chapter 5. Improvements that could be made before the appeal inquiry starts contains a systematic discussion of the answers to questions 4-13. A similar format and approach to that employed in chapter 4 is repeated here with the exception of the responses to question 7 which were not amenable to meaningful quantitative analysis.
Chapter 6. Improvements that could be made once the planning inquiry has started contains a systematic discussion of the answers to questions 14-17. A similar format and approach to that employed in chapter 4 is repeated here.
Chapter 7. Improvements in procedure after the planning inquiry has closed and planning inquiries and development plans contains a systematic discussion of the answers to questions 18-21. A similar format and approach to that employed in chapter 4 is repeated here.
Chapter 8. Issues raised by the consultation paper which were not the subject of a specific question considers the observations of the respondents on a range of issues raised by the consultation paper but not specifically the subject of a question. Responses are grouped around the various issues and subjected to qualitative but not quantitative analysis.
Chapter 9. Issues raised by responses not directly raised by the consultation paper covers responses which do not relate directly to questions in the consultation paper. Responses have been grouped where possible into categories (including relevant responses to question 22).
Chapter 10. Resource implications. Although the consultation paper indicated that overall costs should be reduced by the proposals it was conceded that some of the particular proposals might have resource implications and some of the respondents also took this view of other proposals. Where possible, comments made by respondents on resource implications have also been included.
Chapter 11. Conclusions summarises the findings from the quantitative and qualitative analysis in respect of the key objectives of the consultation exercise. Key themes are identified along with issues for further consideration.
Appendix 1. Consultation questions attaches the consultation letter inviting responses to the consultation document and sets out the 22 specific questions on which views were sought.
Appendix 2. List of respondents provides information on the groups and individuals who responded to the consultation document.
« Previous | Contents | Next »