« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER EIGHT: SUPPORTING PLANNING AUTHORITIES
GENERAL COMMENTS
8.1 Chapter Eight of the White Paper set out proposals for improving delivery of the planning system and identified that at its heart was the need to enhance the performance of planning authorities. In order to achieve this, a package of five measures was identified which the Executive considered would create a new framework of reporting, monitoring, evaluation and support.
8.2 As Table 8.1 shows, there was not a substantial number of comments on this section, but the overwhelming majority of respondents indicated broad support for the proposals, although most qualified this in various ways. Local authorities, in particular were concerned that there would be administrative burdens which had resource implications, while a business respondent thought greater emphasis should be placed on encouraging best practice rather than "punishment" for those found to be failing. Community observations tended to be concerned about an over concentration on speed of decision-making rather than quality.
Table 8.1 General Views on the new Delivery Framework
Respondent Categories | Positive Views | Negative Views | Total Responses |
|---|
No. | % | No. | % | No. | % |
|---|
Local Authorities | 5 | 7% | 0 | 0% | 5 | 7% |
|---|
Public Bodies | 1 | 1% | 0 | 0% | 1 | 1% |
|---|
Businesses | 5 | 7% | 0 | 0% | 5 | 7% |
|---|
Professional & Academic Bodies | 4 | 6% | 0 | 0% | 4 | 6% |
|---|
Voluntary Sector | 14 | 20% | 1 | 1% | 15 | 21% |
|---|
Public and Politicians | 4 | 6% | 1 | 1% | 5 | 7% |
|---|
Total | 33 | 94% | 2 | 6% | 35 | 100% |
|---|
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Performance Reporting
8.3 The White paper indicated that the Executive would work with planning authorities and other interested parties on a revised set of performance targets to apply at the point that the new hierarchy of applications is implemented. This would also include revised targets applying to appeals dealt with by SEIRU. These commitments were supported by over two thirds of the relatively small number of respondents to make comments on the proposal.
8.4 Respondents suggested that the introduction of a new planning system should be used to start afresh to identify new indicators that stem specifically from the most specific and quantifiable new procedures in the White Paper, and that measures of application handling performance should be dropped altogether. There was an allegation that the current system as applied to development control was being abused by authorities in order to enhance their performance and a suggestion that there is merit in authorities being able to "stop the clock" in relation to processing times, if applicants request this. Individual respondents felt that there should be a greater focus on outcomes and not on speed, while a Community Council considered that there was too much emphasis on targets already in the existing system.
Statutory Audit
8.5 At present SEDD conducts a series of audits of planning departments to review statistics, understand the reasons for performance, identify and evaluate different approaches and best practice. The proposal in the White Paper is to put this on a statutory footing. There was complete support for this measure from the handful of respondents expressing a view.
8.6 Development industry representatives expressed support for this measure and called for Audit Reports to be published. It was their view that, where local authorities were demonstrably failing to deliver a satisfactory service, the Scottish Executive should have powers to take over and deliver the service and/or appoint consultants to take over the task. An amenity society response again highlighted the need to focus on outputs but considered a system of inspection to ensure compliance with national policy would be useful. One local authority proposed that the statutory duty of audit should be extended to cover both SEDD and SEIRU and be undertaken by the Accounts Commission whose role could be enhanced by a panel of stakeholders who would advise on the relevance of data gathered and emerging trends.
Power to Commission Investigations
8.7 It was proposed in the White Paper that the Planning Bill will contain powers to allow Ministers to commission an investigation into cases where there is a persistent pattern of decisions that do not comply with development plan policies. Again this was completely supported by a very small number of respondents to the issue. No further detailed points were raised in relation to the measure.
Planning Development Budget
8.8 The White Paper indicated that a Planning Development Budget ( PDB) of £2.25m was established in 2005/6 spread over a period of 3 financial years to 2007/8. It was designed primarily to help planning authorities address training needs and skill gaps. It will also target measures to support and encourage better engagement between planners and the local community, including businesses. Options in relation to monitoring and evaluation of the PDB were indicated to be under consideration. All respondents equally welcomed this proposal and found it broadly acceptable.
8.9 There were views from local authorities and some voluntary organizations that the PDB needs to be continued and expanded to cover the additional resource demands which the White Paper proposals will bring. Business respondents tended to stress the need to address skill shortages, train new planners and upskill those in post. An NDPB identified training issues relating to the natural heritage, while there was also a plea for more financial support for local community groups.
Pilot Mediation Project
8.10 The final measure in this section concerned the Executive proposal to examine the scope for introducing a pilot mediation project which would test its effectiveness in relation to planning issues. This was also totally supported, by the very small number of respondents commenting on the proposal.
8.11 Respondent comments included a specific suggestion that a formal mediation procedure should be introduced, perhaps following the Hearing stage, in which all 3 parties, the developer, the planning authority and the objector would meet face to face with a trained mediator to attempt to resolve at least some if not all conflicts. Another respondent felt that failure to participate in mediation should attract a financial penalty. Other respondents called for clear criteria, identifying which matters were suitable for mediation, should be published and widely consulted upon.
« Previous | Contents | Next »