The Scottish Government

Listen

Ove Arup and Partners with Phil Allmendinger, Geoff Peart Consulting and Anderson Strathern WS
ISBN 0 7559 2968 7
This document is also available in pdf format (128k)

Ove Arup were commissioned by the Scottish Executive to undertake research into the adequacy of the staff and financial resources available to local authority planning departments. The report presents evidence on the nature, scale and causes of resource problems and proposes solutions to identified problems.

Main Findings

• Between 1996-97 and 2003-04 total net revenue expenditure on all services by Scottish local authorities increased by 40.3% but revenue expenditure on planning services reduced from £74.4 million to £70.0 million
• The planning service in Scotland has not been given the resource priority it has needed to operate effectively in recent years
• If local authorities were to achieve 100% cost recovery of fee-related development control activities this would have resulted in an increase of 34% in fee income in 2004-05 equivalent to £7,381,243.
• In 2003 there were 1,673 full-time equivalent planning posts within Scottish local authorities including 84 fulltime equivalent vacancies
• There is an overall shortage of qualified planning staff across Scotland and there are concerns about the future supply of planning graduates, particularly in the West of Scotland where the University of Strathclyde has recently closed its planning school.

Research Findings

1. Structure of the Planning Service

• The Planning Service in Scotland employs approximately 1,587 FTE staff.
• The majority of staff earn between £21,000 and £35,000: some 18.2% are in salary band G (£21,000 - £25,000); 24% in band H (£25,001 - £30,000) and 15.5% in band I (£30,001 - £35,000). A total of 1.1% of all Planning Service staff earn over £60,000 (bands L and M).
• The average salary for full-time equivalent employees in 2003/04 is around £25,200. This compares favourably with £23,900 in England in 2002/03 and £22,411 in Wales in 2003/04.
• Some 6% of full-time equivalent jobs are taken by part-time staff.
• Technical and administrative functions together account for 31% of all Planning Service staff. Case officer level staff (including forward planning staff) account for 41% of the Service, while Senior case officer level staff (including senior forward planners) account for 18%. Managerial staff account for the other 10%.
• The majority of Planning Service staff are employed in Development Control (42%); while 23% are employed in Development Planning work. Specialist conservation and heritage staff account for a further 9% while a further 6% are employed in enforcement.

2. Costs of the Planning Service

• Through the estimation of the number (and pay) of planning service staff and the level of overhead costs as a proportion of that pay, it is thought that the current full cost of the Planning Service in Scotland is around £98.3m.
• Within this, fee-related development control activities are thought to equate to a cost of around £29.4m.
• The current level of resources put into statutory development planning is thought to equate to around £10.4m, or around 35% of that put into fee-related development control work.
• Non-fee applications such as consents required in association with listed buildings or conservation areas, tree applications, and other notifications is though to cost £4.6m at current levels of investment.

3. Changes to fees to achieve cost recovery

Fee Income

• The average fee per fee-related planning application is estimated to be £368.14.
• Estimated total planning application fee income of £21,974,848 in 2004/05.
• Planning application fee income has tended to rise over time, at a similar pace to applications received.

Cost recovery

• In order to achieve 100% cost recovery on fee-related development control activities (compared to current fee income estimated at £22.0m) planning application fee income would need to increase by almost 34% in 2004-05, equivalent to a current shortfall of £7,381,243.

Changes to the basis and coverage of fees

In terms of possible extension of the fee to cover other currently non-fee planning activities:

• Charges for pre-application discussions would serve to reduce cross-subsidy between fee-related and non-fee related activities, but might serve as a disincentive to enter into pre-application discussions.
• On balance it was felt that the costs associated with development planning should not be borne by the planning application fee. Development planning is a public good with limited (though not insignificant) private benefit, which is balanced and offset by the limited public benefit contained within development control, which serves and confers primarily private benefits.

In terms of possible extension of the fee to cover other currently non-fee planning applications:

• although accounting for a large proportion of overall non-fee caseload, there was little support for fees for applications for Listed Building Consent, although there is scope for an administrative-type charge. Concerns centred around equity considerations and a desire to not provide any incentive to not apply to consent;
• as with listed building consents, there was limited support for fees for applications for Conservation Area Consent, although again there is scope for an administrative charge. Concerns based around the equity of such a decision and the possibly relatively high level of any fee compared to the cost of works;
• with significant public and private benefit considerations, there is on balance a case for an administrative-type fee for tree related applications and notifications, although further investigation is required to better understand the full extent of such applications, and thus the yield of any fee levied and the efficiency of instigating such a charge; and
• the is scope (on equity) grounds to end the free go for resubmitted applications following refusal, although this would be likely to have implications for local authority performance levels, the demand for pre-application discussions and the proportion of refused applications going to appeal.

4. The supply and demand for planners

Demand

• There is a widely felt shortage of planners across Scotland, and demand for their skills is increasing. The numbers of suitably qualified applicants are falling, with many planning departments now considering themselves 'lucky' to find suitable staff to fill their vacancies.
• The variety of skills required by contemporary planners continues to increase, with current emphasis on community planning and SEA. While this diversification in workload may be welcomed, it brings with it further pressures on existing staff resources and is expected to create further demand for planners in the foreseeable future.
• Recruiters within individual authorities are using a variety of methods to attract professional staff and develop additional skills, or opting for the pragmatic approach of training up existing staff. However, this does not disguise the overall shortage of planners across the profession as a whole, which is of even more fundamental importance. Chapter 10 explores the issues relating to redressing this shortage.

Supply

• Planning is an ageing profession, with the number of retirements expected to outnumber new graduates in the next 10 years. Universities are restricted in the scope of how they can respond to this growing crisis, but recent developments such as the 1-year RTPI-accredited Masters degree are expected to alleviate some of the shortage.
• The recent closure of Strathclyde planning school is considered to be an especially serious blow to planning authorities in the west of Scotland, in terms of the supply of graduate staff.
• Jointly accredited degrees are seen by some universities as a means to attract more students to planning, although there is evidence to suggest that those who graduate with joint planning and property degrees frequently seek work in the property sector rather than planning, drawn by the higher salaries in the medium term.
• Students and employers were keen to emphasise the benefits of year out placements: in addition to making graduates more employable, they offer planning departments a source of temporary staff and enable them to build relations which often result in the permanent appointment of graduates once their courses are completed.
• Planning courses were criticised by professional staff for not equipping students with skills or knowledge of appeals, enforcement, and architectural/design awareness. However, as might be expected, they are strong on planning policy and theory-based elements.
• If increasing numbers of graduates are to arrive in the planning system with only a 1-year planning qualification, there will be an increasing need for in-house training and continuing professional development. While to some extent this will serve to resolve the supply problem in planning, it will bring other resource pressures in relation to ongoing training requirements.

5. Maximum fees and wider policy considerations

Maximum Fees

• Based on evidence from England, maximum fee cases may experience some of the lowest levels of cost recovery across the system as a whole. This is because they include a number of applications associated with disproportionately high costs of processing. It is also likely that the costs of handling some of these applications requires a cross subsidy of fee income derived from other application categories.
• Evidence from the surveys in this study suggests that large housing schemes are a large proportion of overall cases, but that the overall number of cases is small. Anecdotal evidence from surveys also suggests that large infrastructure projects may also be in this category together with wind farms and major minerals developments.
• Ensuring a higher level of cost recovery among the largest and most controversial maximum fee cases requires a change to current fee arrangements. This could involve raising or removing the maximum fee "cap", and/or the introduction of tapered incremental charges.
• The options open to Scotland in improving the cost recovery on the very largest applications could involve approaches similar to those recently the subject of consultation in England involving intermediate thresholds and tapered charges, or by simply raising the maximum fee threshold by 50% to 100% or more. The total removal of fee caps is not recommended. However, there may also be scope for negotiated fees for the very largest applications.

Wider policy

• A number of wider policy concerns arise from the study. These include the requirement for higher fees to be matched by performance improvements; the divergence of views in setting fees for online applications; and the need for guidance on the registration and validation of applications to improve the overall quality of applications submitted. Strong support is also indicated for the use of Planning Delivery Budget to support CPD activities. This is in view of the need to improve the skill basis of planning as another aspect of improving overall planning resources. However, there is also some interest in a performance-based award system similar to that adopted in England, mostly because of the large payments seen going to English authorities.

Research Methods

The methodology employed combined quantitative and qualitative methods, primarily based on surveys sent to local authorities, visits to case study authorities for more detailed discussions and a workshop-style seminar that enabled a wider discussion of the study's emerging conclusions.

The information required for the study fell into three parts. The first part consisted of the collection of quantitative, factual information relating to local authority planning departments' budgets, cost levels and distribution and staff numbers, roles and responsibilities. The second part consisted of the collection of local authority specific qualitative information relating to the deployment of staff resources within planning authorities and addressing issues such as how staff are organised and managed within authorities, recruitment, retention and issues concerning the professional education and training of planning staff. The third part consisted of a strategic review of policy issues relating to the allocation of financial resources to planning services.

The methodology employed for the study was developed from the approach adopted by Arup for previous similar studies undertaken in England and Wales.

Dissemination

The research findings and research report are available on the Scottish Executive Social Research website, and will be circulated widely to stakeholders.

If you wish further copies of this Research Findings or have any enquiries about social research, please contact us at:

Tel: 0131 244-7565
Fax: 0131 244-7573
Email: socialresearch@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

If you wish a copy of "Resources for Planning" the research report which is summarised in this research finding, please send a cheque for £5.00 made payable to:

Tel: 0131 622 8283 / 0131 622 8258
Fax: 0131 622 8258
Email: business.edinburgh@blackwell.co.uk

This document (and other Research Findings and Reports) and information about social research in the Scottish Executive may be viewed on the Internet at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

The site carries up-to-date information about social and policy research commissioned and published on behalf of the Scottish Executive. Subjects covered include transport, housing, social inclusion, rural affairs, children and young people, education, social work, community care, local government, civil justice, crime and criminal justice, regeneration, planning and women's issues. The site also allows access to information about the Scottish Household Survey.