« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5.1.1: Planning Hierarchy
Local Authorities
Aberdeenshire Council: The proposal for a hierarchy for planning is generally welcomed, with the proposal for applications of different scales be processed differently. In particular we welcome the opportunities for more local decision making in the case of local and minor developments. The proposal for a local review body to substitute for appeal to Ministers echoes the current administrative arrangements within Aberdeenshire (where Area committees' decisions can be re-examined by the Infrastructure Services Committee) and is something that we are comfortable with.
Angus Council: The proposed hierarchy for planning is a significant change to the current planning system. Within Angus the numbers of national or major developments are likely to be limited. The recognition by the Executive that the cost of processing major applications does not always reflect the planning fee is welcomed. However, it is hoped that in the negotiation of processing agreements that applicants do not have unrealistic expectations that are difficult to deliver. The introduction of the planning hierarchy is supported by Angus Council. However, there is some concern that in respect of the proposed appeal mechanism in relation to minor developments that there is a statutory appeal beyond the review body.
East Ayrshire Council: The proposals for a new hierarchy of applications, extended officer delegation powers, a new local review body comprised of locally elected members, represent significant departures from current established practice, but it is considered that these measures will result in a significant improvement to the speed of decision-making.
East Lothian Council: The proposed hierarchy and structure for decision taking and appeals is supported with some qualifications.
East Renfrewshire Council: The introduction of a hierarchy of development types is imaginative and could, in the longer term, improve matters. However, it could on the other hand make the system more complex and may not lead to greater efficiency, particularly for Authorities like East Renfrewshire that already have in place a generous scheme of delegation to officers.
Falkirk Council: While the proposal for a hierarchy of planning application types is welcomed, in particular because it recognises the very considerable differences between types of application, their impact and complexity, concerns have been expressed that this proposal could lead to a loss of local democracy and to a reduction in the involvement of local members in the planning process.
Fife Council: The introduction of a new hierarchy for handling planning applications at four different levels is very much welcomed and strongly supported. This proposal appears to bring clarity and simplicity to the planning system, though may raise issues of loss of democratic control over national developments. Categorisation likely to be defined by Scottish Executive.
Highland Council: There is concern about the details contained in the Hierarchy for Planning. Whilst it is acknowledged that this is perhaps a first stab at identifying different levels, it is felt that there needs to be further consideration and consultation on the detailed hierarchy before it is incorporated into any Planning Bill or secondary legislation. A particular concern is the extent of consultation and scrutiny of the NPF which will thereafter be used to justify which national developments might be removed from determination by a local authority whilst at the other end of the scale substantial questions were raised about the acceptability of a local Review Body comprising Councillors dealing with planning appeals rather than the Inquiry Reporter's Unit. Members questioned the loss of democratic input if officers have powers to refuse, the prospect of senior Members being excluded from the Review Body if they are party to a delegated decision and the likelihood of increased lobbying of Members with a view to overturning an officer refusal decision.
Midlothian Council: Careful consideration needs to be given to the categorisation of the various developments, whether national, major or local. It is unclear, for example, as to whether a 100 or a 250 unit housing development would be classified as major or local. There are implications for authorities, as the lower the threshold, the greater the number of applications requiring 'processing agreements". Note that for auditing purposes the Executive currently classifies a development of 10 or more houses as "major".
Moray Council: This package of proposals are intended to facilitate prioritisation in the use of resources using different procedures and levels of scrutiny for different development types dependent on whether they raise issues of national, major, local or minor importance. The 'skeletal' nature and information provided about the proposals requires further clarification and guidance to implement the changes. This must all be addressed prior to any new planning bill to ensure that this new regime will actually reduce and not add to the complexity of the planning process. At present the proposals include measures that introduce further procedural requirements which may assist greater inclusion but not necessarily greater efficiency.
North Ayrshire Council: The Scottish Executive should provide further guidance on best practice with regard to this provision.
North Ayrshire Council (Chief Executive): The Scottish Executive should provide further guidance on best practice with regard to this provision.
North Lanarkshire Council: The principle of the new hierarchy is sound: it should help to refocus the system on the most important matters. Devolving greater responsibility for local developments to Local Authorities is also welcomed in principle. There appears to be a significant gulf between the types of application referred to as Major and those referred to as Local Developments - it will need to be clear what category the various types and scales of developments fall into.
Renfrewshire Council: The principle of dealing with different types of planning application in different ways that relate to the scale and complexity of the proposed development appears sensible. Greater time and resources can be devoted to the larger applications with simpler quicker procedures devoted to the more minor developments.
Scottish Borders Council: The approach adopted is generally supported with the exception of the proposal to remove certain categories of development from planning control.
South Lanarkshire Council: The overall principle of establishing a planning hierarchy is supported, however it does raise a number of practical issues. Clear guidance from the Executive will be required on how it is to be implemented.
West Dunbartonshire Council: These proposals recognise the need for different ways of dealing with proposals of different scale.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Defence Estates: Defence Estates supports the proposed rationalisation of the planning application process according to the scale and size of proposals, in particular the proposal to prioritise a more efficient processing of major applications. As a major landowner in Scotland, Defence Estates would welcome the timely determination of applications for large sites and would be willing to pay a larger fee to fund this service and become involved with processing agreements with planning authorities as set out in the White Paper. However, Defence Estates believes that further clarification is necessary from the Scottish Executive on the scope of the categories of major developments which will warrant the second tier service and fee schedules in due course.
Historic Environment Council for Scotland: Subject to the concerns raised in this response over levels of qualified staff and investment in the development management system and on the matter of local appeals, HEACS welcomes the proposed levels of subsidiarity in relation to proposals for local developments, which should rest properly with local authorities. Proposals for dealing with minor development seem sensible, provided there is an adequate protective mechanism for matters relating to the historic environment. For effective measures to be in place there should be a requirement imposed for every local authority to have access to informed, in-house advice in relation to the historic environment. Specifically this would require qualified staff to be appointed for archaeological services, and as conservation officers. Such advice is currently not available to all local authorities, and where it is, there are levels of serious understaffing at present.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise: The need to re-found the Planning System on broader principles is reflected in the proposal to establish a Hierarchy for Planning and we would agree that this potentially offers great scope. We feel that the four-tier hierarchy is generally appropriate and that the descriptions of the four levels are clear and would achieve acceptability by users of the system.
Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian:SEEL very much agree with this proposal and that proposed developments will be processed depending on which category of the hierarchy they fall into. We would be interested to understand how the categories will be defined to ensure that there is no confusion regarding the allocation of development to different categories.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Welcomes the identification of a development hierarchy to allow Planning Authorities and other public bodies to prioritise resources to those developments of most significance. SEPA already uses a hierarchy to prioritise applications for development it is consulted upon and this proposal will allow the Agency to further refine this process. SEPA have some practical concerns regarding how different types of development will be categorised within the hierarchy.
Scottish Natural Heritage: The proposed hierarchy of development should help to ensure that proposed new developments are subject to levels of scrutiny that are proportionate to their scale and significance. The proposed approaches for dealing with major and local development seem generally appropriate, although the developments falling into each category are not yet clearly defined. The proposals to extend the delegation of decision-making to officers in respect of local developments are also logical. The independence of a review body composed of locally elected members might be called into question, and it would be worth considering the scope for some input to the review process from outwith the planning authority.
Scottish Water: This should provide a mechanism to prioritise development in the national interest which will attract targeted investment for the required water and sewerage services along with other infrastructure. Such a hierarchy is essential to support sustainable economic growth. However, we believe the proposals are not sufficiently developed in respect to how "bad neighbour" applications would be managed within the hierarchy. This is further hindered by an apparent lack of flexibility that suggests, for example, that an application for even a minor issue at one of our sites, merely by virtue of it falling within the category of bad neighbour development, could be subject to scrutiny at a level of the proposed hierarchy that would not be warranted. We especially appreciate the importance afforded to water and wastewater facilities as noted under "National Developments". Scottish Water's assets and operations are not solely a facet of Scotland's infrastructure that supports economic growth but also one that plays an essential part in public health and environmental protection. Scottish Water's activities are many and varied, however, and we would envisage projects that will likely fit into each of the categories proposed. As such we believe it is fundamentally important to expand and define this categorisation to provide the necessary understanding and certainty in the approach to be adopted and minimise the potential need for appeals. Scottish Water considers it essential that we are involved in the development of the practicalities of creating these classifications.
Sportscotland: We support the proposals to differentiate planning applications in relation to their scale and impact, and instigate proportionate measures for assessment and determination. Details of the classification system will naturally be a matter for further consultation and legislation, but at this stage we wish to flag up the importance of giving sufficient consideration to development proposals relating to sport and recreation which, though often small in scale, can have considerable implications for the well being of local communities. This might include proposals such as development on small areas of open space which are important for informal recreation, or development of floodlighting at outdoor sports facilities which might be important for the usefulness and viability of such facilities.
Other Public Bodies
Central Scotland Forest Trust:CSFT supports the new hierarchy. A key element of its success will be to ensure that the methods of consultation with the public and agencies are tailored correctly to each level of the hierarchy. For example a national development will affect more people than a local development and this should be reflected in the consultation process.
Strathclyde Passenger Transport:SPT is currently engaged in a number of transport infrastructure developments that would fall under the categories of National Developments or Major Developments. As the law currently stands, these projects need approval under the private bill legislation. We would like to receive further information on how the proposed planning hierarchy, and in particular the proposed instruments and decision processes, and these developments would impact on the current statutory procedures. Similarly, how would the hierarchy outlined in the White Paper relate to proposals for a Scottish Transport & Works Act?
Development Industry
Dawn Homes Limited: One aspect which causes us particular dismay is the "call in" procedures (respondent refers to one of this company's proposals being called in for a public inquiry). This will only cause major delay, unpredictability and extensive costs to both the applicants and the Council who are minded to approve the application. Respondent refers to planning permission elsewhere for a new superstore in flagrant abuse of the guidelines on out-of-centre shopping policies but which has surprisingly not been called in by the Scottish Executive. Neither of these decisions has been subject to scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament. Respondent notes that one of their examples relates stated examples relates to matters of national importance to the country's economy as a whole as opposed to the other which relates to the survival of an organisation that the respondent states is struggling. In that respect, the definitions of national, major, local and minor developments needs much better definition than contained within the White Paper.
Grosvenor Investments: Larger I more strategic projects require different handling therefore a structure that reflects these distinctions is sensible. However I this hierarchy will only work if it is implemented appropriately. It is important that individuals within the planning offices are fully aware of the changes and the knock on effect on their work. In addition, we would welcome further clarification from the Scottish Executive on the criteria for the hierarchy. In particular, we would be interested in what specifically constitutes a national or major project, as arguably some of our developments could fall into both categories.
Homes for Scotland: In principle, the proposed new hierarchy is a significant step forward but Homes for Scotland's view is that the distinction between national, major and local developments as set out in the White Paper is not yet sufficiently clear. It is likely that residential development proposals will straddle both the major and local categories, although we assume that the majority of new housing developments will fall in the major category. There is a need therefore for greater clarity and clearer definitions from the Executive and advice on the scale of developments and the cut-offs between the different categories. Homes for Scotland would be willing to work with the Executive on the detailed application of this change as it affects residential developments.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): The proposed new hierarchy for planning, whereby the system deals with different types of development in different ways, is a sensible proposition for dealing with national, major and local developments and should hopefully help prioritise planning authority resources to those projects that need them most.
Mactaggart and Mickel Ltd: Support for the hierarchy, which brings welcome clarity to the present system. The democratic process seems to be acknowledged and protected as far as the principles are concerned. Definition of the boundaries between the elements of the hierarchy should be a key principle.
Manor Kingdom Group: In principle, the proposed new hierarchy is a significant step forward but Manor Kingdom is of the opinion that the distinction between national, major and local developments as set out in the White Paper remains unclear. It is likely that residential development proposals will straddle both the major and local categories and we would seek clearer definitions from the Executive.
Muir Group: Clarification is required on the distinction between national, major and local developments as set out in the White Paper.
Stewart Milne Holdings: . In principle we would endorse the approach outlined within the White Paper which supports the distinction between national, major and local developments. Notwithstanding this general support, we consider that a significant amount of additional information must be forthcoming in order for us, and the housebuilding industry to finally sign up to such arrangements. Indeed, it is not clear at present how you define between a national and major planning application with regard to major strategic housing land releases.
Stewart Milne Homes: Early consultation should be undertaken on what constitutes national, major and minor applications. We would welcome the opportunity to input into such a process. The criteria to determine what level an application will be considered at needs to be clearly set out.
The Buchanan Partnership: Supports the modernising of the planning system, through the introduction of a new hierarchy of developments and corresponding prioritisation of planning applications and its prescription of different procedures according to the category into which a development lies ( i.e. National, Major, and Local Developments). The White Paper identifies local authorities as being responsible for the categorised 'Major' and 'Local' Developments, and Scottish Ministers responsible for 'National' Developments. The Buchanan Partnership welcomes the notion that if the Partnership were to submit any planning application in regards to Buchanan Galleries, this application would be considered a Major Development, and therefore 'fast-tracked' as a priority for the Council.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: In principle we can see the merit in sieving out non-contentious and simply minor planning applications in order to better use the resources of planning departments. However, we have concerns about the consequences of categorisation within the hierarchy, process agreements and the associated appeal procedures.
Other Businesses
ASDA: There needs to be a clearer definition of the type of development that would fall into this category and of those that would fall into the "local developments" category.
Arqiva: The new proposed hierarchy for planning is noted. It is unclear which types of development might fall into this category. For example the government is pushing for switch over from analogue to digital television transmission. Will this fall under this category? The scale of development for the project is generally small yet has high national importance and is a firm government objective.
Association of Electricity Producers: We welcome the approach taken by the Executive in the planning hierarchy. However, the Executive should clarify as soon as possible where large scale renewable energy developments (those requiring Section 36 consents) will sit within the hierarchy. Similarly the criteria for determining which developments will be treated as national projects have yet to be set out. We urge the Executive to publish guidance on how all projects will be determined as soon as possible.
CBI Scotland: The proposed planning hierarchy is a sensible step. Clarifying what projects are likely to fall within each level should be a priority.
Civil Engineering Contractors Association: We welcome the "horses for courses" policy that will allow decisions to be made at the appropriate level and free up time for decision-makers to consider more difficult problems.
Crown Castle UKLTD: We agree that the current development control system is poorly focused and does not adequately handle development proposals of varying importance and complexity. We therefore broadly support the suggested 4 tier approach to development 'management' structured around the importance of the development proposed. What is unclear, however, and what must not be lost in such an approach, are developments which may been seen to have only local significance in terms of specific siting and design considerations, but form part of a much larger national or strategic network. This is particularly so for modern electronic communications where the majority of such developments will likely fall into the category of Local Development due to their scale and complexity, but each electronic communications installation may form part of an essential national wireless network of significant economic and social benefit. We appreciate that NPPG19 does present this wider picture, but we suggest that if the hierarchal approach to development control is introduced; the above matter must be fully reflected, probably reinforced in best practice guidance and policy.
Federation of Small Businesses: The FSB welcomes the principle of a planning hierarchy. There is an obvious need for clarity on the definition of 'major' and 'local' developments. The White Paper suggests that this will be done via subordinate legislation but this must be open to debate and subject to consultation. It seems clear that 'national' developments will be only those projects of a strategic nature, outlined in the new National Planning Framework, however this definition must also be tightened up.
Forth Ports PLC: Supports the proposed new hierarchy for development in the planning process according to the scale and size of proposals and, in particular, the proposal to prioritise the more efficient processing of planning applications. Major brownfield regeneration sites, in line with the recommendations of PPS1, should receive priority attention by planning authorities. Recognises the competing demands on limited resources within planning authorities and would urge the Executive to place greater emphasis on the role of planning in the development process and therefore in the economic success of the country by directing additional resource to local authority planning departments. Whilst Forth Ports PLC notes the proposal that applicants could contribute additional funds for a guaranteed time period within which its major applications would be determined, it however, remains of the opinion that there is a clear responsibility on planning authorities to determine planning applications within a statutory eight week time frame and the Executive must ensure that sufficient public resource is available to achieve this objective.
Institute of Directors: A logical hierarchy of planning - national and local is welcome - sometimes the national interest is paramount. We very much welcome the higher level decision making process for national level projects.
Lafarge Cement UK ( LCUK): The development hierarchy proposed must clearly identify into which category planning applications for mineral extraction and for major industrial installations such as cement works will fall, either for new development or extensions to existing operations. It is essential that all such applications be treated consistently throughout the country.
Mobile Operators Association ( MOA): Mobile telecommunications networks, as being rolled out by our members, do not sit comfortably within the new framework of development definitions. SPP2, NPPG19 and other Scottish Executive policy documents e.g. A Smart, Successful Scotland all identify that a well 'connected' Scotland is vital for economic and social vibrancy and yet the actual developments can be very small scale. In this respect, and bearing in mind the implications for how applications should be dealt, the level of consultation and the appeal procedures, telecommunications development whilst being a local development could also be construed as a national development insofar as it forms part of a national network which the Scottish Executive has identified as a key driver for economic growth and a contributor to the social agenda for Scotland as a whole. We would like to see this acknowledged in any review of the legislation and planning guidance.
National Grid: We generally support the proposed four-tier approach to development 'management'. Major projects promoted by National Grid in Scotland are likely to be gas pipeline transmission infrastructure, so would normally be outside the planning system, being development permitted to take place through Class 39(1)(a) of Part 13 of Schedule 1 to the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. Class 39(1)(a) indicates that "development by a public gas transporter [now "gas transporter"] required for the purposes of its undertaking consisting of the laying underground of mains pipes or other apparatus" is permitted development for planning legislation. Some developments connected with our infrastructure, such as above ground installations, may however require planning permission in the normal way.
Orange PCS Ltd: We welcome the identification of a hierarchy of developments as an essential way for the Executive to achieve its objectives for a range of policy areas.
Quarry Products Association (Scotland): The development hierarchy proposed must clearly identify into which category planning applications for mineral/aggregate extraction will fall. This will be necessary whether the application is for a green field proposal or an extension to existing operations. It is essential that all applications are treated consistently throughout the country.
RWE Npower plc: While we support the general principle of the proposed hierarchy we are concerned that the allocation of a particular application to an individual level of the hierarchy may itself become a matter of dispute. Every effort should be made to minimise this risk. It is not clear whether or how the new planning procedures will carry over into the consideration of Electricity Act consent applications. Any changes are therefore likely to carry over to the Form B stage of Electricity Act consent procedures by default unless specific provision to the contrary is made. We are not opposed to such carry-over in principle: there would be merit in applying elements of the new proposals to Electricity Act consent applications, especially as regards pre-application consultations. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss whether and how this might be done. However, in this context it must be remembered that hydro schemes down to 1 MW capacity are subject to Section 36 consent and that such small schemes are likely to fall most aptly into the "local" rather than the "major" development category. The fact that small run of river hydro schemes down to 1 MW are subject to the same consent procedure as major thermal or nuclear power stations, or large wind farms of over 50 MW, is an anomaly and runs counter to the apparent approach of the proposed planning reforms, of seeking to make procedures more proportionate to the matters to be regulated. We would urge the Scottish Executive to review the threshold capacity above which hydro schemes become subject to Section 36 consent in the light of both the current White Paper proposals and the advent of the Controlled Activities Regulations ( CAR) which will give SEPA much greater powers to control activities affecting the water environment.
Scottish Chambers of Commerce: Clarification is required on the distinction and boundaries between national, major and local developments as set out in the White Paper.
Scottish Environmental Services Association ( SESA): The hierarchy will only be effective if there is effective political leadership at national and local government.
Scottish Financial Enterprise ( SFE): Welcomes the proposed new planning hierarchy - providing that the realisation of this ensures that major infrastructure requirements of national significance, such as long-term transport and communications developments, can be decided, protected and delivered promptly and efficiently.
Scottish Power: We support the principle of categorisation. The proposal to categorise the applications will have some advantages. However, we request further clarification on who will allocate applications into categories and who will prioritise applications? Will there be a right to appeal the 'category' to which a project is allocated? In particular, the allocation of 'energy' projects within the proposals is unclear. There should be clear criteria to distinguish to which category a project is allocated. Perhaps a hierarchical approach could be implemented for energy projects?
NATIONAL >50 MW
MAJOR >5 MW and <50 MW
LOCAL <5 MW
There should also be a mechanism to appeal the category that a development is allocated.
SITA ( UK) Ltd: Although this section of the White Paper makes mention of "waste management facilities" on a number of occasions, the definition of the term is not expanded. As stated above, the Company wishes to reserve its position with regard to the likely effectiveness of the proposed hierarchical determination system until "waste management facilities" in the context of "National Developments" are defined, as it is the Company's view that to draw this too widely would have the effect of curbing the provision of facilities.
Tarmac Ltd: The foremost question in connection with the new hierarchy is naturally where business activities will fall and in turn how applications will be process. In general Tarmac is in favour of any forum where the correct issues will prevail and receive proper consideration at the prime time. It would have been very beneficial to have been able to consider the white paper proposals in tandem with the criteria that might be used for determining where development types might fit within the hierarchy. Without those criteria being available it is not possible to fully assess the likely benefits that might result from the proposals. Your earliest publication of criteria would be welcomed and should certainly be made available prior to publication of a Planning Bill. On the information given it appears possible at least that quarry proposals of a significant size might fall within the category of Major Developments. I should point out however that a large proportion of applications for quarry related development are for very minor non-contentious alterations to workings or for ancillary quarry developments such as plant alterations. Those developments might more fairly be considered as Local or Minor Developments. I would therefore ask that care be taken to ensure that quarry related development is not simply treated as being in a single class of Major Development. Again, I would be pleased to consider criteria for differentiating between different forms of quarry related developments.
Tesco Stores Ltd: We support the suggestion that proposed developments will be processed and scrutinised depending on whether they raise issues of national, major, local or minor importance. Devolved decision-making, with planning powers exercised at the most appropriate level, should help speed up the planning process, and support community and business engagement in planning. To avoid unnecessary uncertainty it will however be important to agree clear definitions of what constitutes a major development.
The Scottish Coal Company Limited ( SCCL): It is not clear from the White Paper where minerals developments and in particular opencast coal will fit into the hierarchy. We often hear, for instance in SPP1, that the working of minerals is in the national interest and would appreciate clarification of this point. Given that SPP1 states that coal mining is in the national interest then it would be appropriate for the new National Planning Framework to make provision for the continued working of coal.
Unison (Scotland):UNISON Scotland broadly supports the proposed hierarchy of planning. Further clarification is needed on how applications will be classified under this system to avoid the centralisation of planning and a loss of local participation. Even strategic national developments have local implications. There is also a need for a clearer criterion for calling in major developments. It is not the role of the Scottish Executive to 'supervise' decisions taken by democratically elected councils except when the authority has a significant vested interest.
WBB Minerals: Whilst the principle of such a regime could be supported, before any specific comment can be made in support of this proposal the nature of developments falling within each tier needs to be clarified. For example would a quarry development fall within a National, Major or Local development? Would this depend upon the nature of the mineral, i.e. a silica (industrial) sand quarry may have less of an impact than say an aggregate quarry, but is clearly of national importance whereas the aggregate proposal may be of a more local issue.
Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC: Supports the proposed rationalisation of the planning application process according to the scale and size of proposals, in particular the proposal to prioritise a more efficient processing of major applications. Further clarification is necessary on how different classes of development are defined. For example major and minor development. This may be different across Scotland and in different parts of a city. It may be open to interpretation. Also what is defined as minor development may be of significant importance to Morrisons, for example extending hours of operation or servicing, extensions to existing stores etc. It may be concerned if these matters are dealt with by a local review body at appeal.
Professional Organisations
Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport: The proposed 'hierarchy' of developments is supported with the Executive taking a close and it is hoped earlier interest in the progress of national and major developments. The reduced comparative consideration of minor proposals is sensible.
Institute of Civil Engineers Scotland: Revised hierarchy is welcomed with focus on delivery of national projects
RICS Scotland: The hierarchy of national, major, local and minor developments is noted by RICS Scotland and is broadly supported. We believe this is a positive move and hope that this will speed up the process of process planning applications. However, we feel that the definition of the three lower categories is somewhat vague and requires greater definition. For example will the identification of a "large scale housing development" be determined by the number of housing units or will it be determined by the number of housing units per hectare? It is also not clear who is going to decide this definition or if this will simply be determined by price, either as a means of raising funds or as a way of attempting to fast track proposals.
RTPI Scotland: The Institute supports the concept of the hierarchy for planning. Further work is urgently needed, however, to define national and major developments and to identify the scope for extending the existing range of permitted development. Defining national developments will add greater clarity to the role anticipated of the National Planning Framework. Defining the scope of major developments and of extending permitted development will clarify the likely scale of the local developments category. We are inclined to the view that major developments will be relatively few but also that the scope for extending permitted development will, in the final analysis, be fairly restricted. Accordingly, there will remain a large proportion of cases within the local development category, including both householder developments and some relatively large and complex developments which are, notwithstanding, consistent with the development plan.
SSDP: The Society feels that in the proposed hierarchy for determining planning applications there is a need for a better and more specific definition of national/major/local developments.
The Law Society of Scotland: The Society believes that it will be important for there to be clear and robust definitions of the new categories in order to avoid confusion and to encourage consistency and a speedy and effective mechanism for resolving disputes over which category a development falls into. Reference is made to the Environmental Impact Assessment mechanisms as a template for this, the Scottish Ministers being arbiters.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Bell & Scott: In brief, the proposed new hierarchy seems to us to be sensible and it is easy to agree that, for example, developments which are clearly "Minor Developments" should be treated quite differently to "Major Developments". However much will depend upon the detail of the scheme which is put in place to determine into which category individual developments will fall. There will always be clear instances of, for example, "National Developments" or "Local Developments", but many developments will fall on the borderline between two categories and we should wish to see the proposals for dealing with that issue. It would be unfortunate if delays were to occur in the planning system simply because of arguments over whether, for example, a particular development should be dealt with as a "Local Development" or a "Major Development".
Bruce and Partners: The proposed separation of national, major and local development proposals in terms of development management will go a considerable way towards improving speed and quality of decision-making.
Collar, Neil: This is an interesting new idea, but needs to be developed further. Despite the proposed new structure, few changes are proposed. All applications would continue to be determined by local authorities, unless called-in by the Scottish Ministers. It seems inconsistent that national applications would be dealt with initially by local authorities, when applications under the Electricity Act go direct to Ministers. The only new ideas are the processing agreement and reviews by a body of councillors. The operation of the proposed new hierarchy will depend on the definitions of the various categories of development. It is essential that the definitions are widely debated prior to their final adoption.
Colliers CRE: We believe that this will assist in providing consistent decision making which will in turn provide the general public with greater confidence in the planning system. Extending permitted development rights and removing the overwhelming number of planning applications, which severely impinge upon the resources of planning departments, by introducing the category of minor developments is to be welcomed. Thus, allowing local authority planners to concentrate their efforts in major and local development planning applications which require their professional input. A cautious welcome is extended to national developments to be decided by Scottish Ministers, there will require to be a prescriptive list of thresholds that trigger this designation of a planning application, it should apply to solely national developments and not strategic applications as intimated in the 'White Paper'. This will in turn allow for transparency and consistency of assessing national planning applications, which will in turn build public confidence in this new hierarchy.
Drysdale, Robert: There is a need for thresholds to be specified to identify "Major Developments". These thresholds should be set fairly high - it will defeat the object of having a hierarchy if too many applications fall into the category of "major". For example, while a large shopping centre ( e.g. Ocean Terminal, Glasgow Fort) would qualify as "major", individual superstores or retail warehouses should not.
Humberts Leisure Consulting: Our clients may have interests at all levels of the proposed hierarchy. The tourist economy needs more recognition. We welcome better schemes of delegation to speed the system up. There are concerns over appeals being reviewed by locally elected members, as this is not an independent body and could be open to abuse. We also welcome any review of permitted development rights and would want to be involved in representing its clients. We support any review of use classes order and would want to be involved in representing our clients.
Keppie Planning Ltd: Further clarification required to give clear definition of the projects within the proposed Hierarchy for Planning.
Maclay, Murray & Spens: Broadly speaking, the proposals are to be welcomed, especially at the smaller end of the scale. We fully endorse the intention to review the extent to which applications for minor developments could be removed from the scope of the planning system altogether. An extension of permitted development rights would remove a substantial amount of the workload from Planning Officers leaving them able to devote more time to more complex applications.
MBM Planning & Development: The proposed new Hierarchy for Planning is a sensible approach to dealing with the broad spectrum of proposals that are submitted to planning authorities each year. However for the major proposals this change may result in claims of an increased centralisation of decision making. The additional burden that will be placed on the Scottish Executive's resources must also not be underestimated.
Muir Smith Evans: We welcome the proposal for a new hierarchy for planning applications. This is common sense. We think, however, that its success will depend on it being clearly understood by all the operators and users of the system, and on clear guidance on how to categorise applications which lie near the boundaries of categories. This could be of particular importance for the boundary between major and local developments.
Paull & Williamsons: The proposal to treat different types of development differently is interesting and we support it. It could be the means of releasing resources so as to refocus the system on the more significant developments. Careful thought will need to be given to defining the different levels if disputes are to be avoided. Applicants should know when an application is lodged which level of the hierarchy it falls into; this is not a matter which should be left to the determination of planning authorities.
Turley Associates: The proposed categories of 'national', 'major', 'local' and 'minor' development is helpful and therefore supported in principle. However, there is scope to reconsider the definitions of major and local developments. Such initiatives as the setting of determination timetables and bespoke planning application fees are supported in principle but could be applied to a much wider range of developments than proposed.
Warren Consultants: In principle, we think that the hierarchical approach to different types of planning applications is excellent but subject to some important qualifications. In particular we are very concerned about the appeal rights in relation to local developments. It is clear from the White Paper that Local Developments are divided into two sub-categories. Larger scale local developments will be determined by elected members (A) but smaller Local Developments (B) will be delegated to officers and seemingly denied the right of appeal to Scottish Ministers. Instead, appeals will be determined by a local review body of councillors. We think that a local appeal system may work for extremely small applications where local councillors would in effect be acting like local magistrates settling a neighbour dispute, but in our view it is essential that any planning applications above that level must have a right of appeal above the local authority because there is no question that impartiality will be impossible if appeal decisions are left to local members. The White Paper says "local authorities are best placed to take decisions on local matters". For a large number of cases, this is fundamentally not true. There needs to be clarification of this point.
Academic Bodies
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: The new hierarchy is appealing in principle but there is likely to be a problem of definition given the different procedures envisaged for national, major, local and minor. Of particular concern here would be the "minor" category.
University of Edinburgh: The UoE broadly welcomes the introduction of a new hierarchy for planning and believes that with further refinement it will result in a more focused and efficient planning system. The hierarchy requires to be defined clearly and the UoE would welcome the opportunity to be consulted on the definitions as it is constantly involved with varied projects that range from what may be considered National Developments down to Minor Developments. The UoE, as part of a wider strategy for its estate, is actively engaged in Master planning various developments and consider this to be a significant part of the planning process. We therefore believe that Masterplans should be taken into account in the new hierarchy. A significant proportion of the UoE's estate is located within Edinburgh's World Heritage Site and affect Listed Buildings, often of national importance. It is unclear from the White Paper how developments within this area are to be categorised in the hierarchy given planning significance of the World Heritage Site and Listed Buildings.
Community Councils
Balmerino, Kilmany and Logie Community Council: Proposals to establish a hierarchy for planning generally welcome i.e. National Developments, Major Developments, Local Developments and Minor Developments. Also good idea to remove 'very' minor development from the need to apply for planning permission. However, is there a risk that there will be less opportunity for local input to National and Major Developments?
Broughton & Pilrig Community Council: We agree the classification of levels of applications from National to Minor but we do believe there is a glaring if unintended over-stressing of attention to urban zones. Rural and urban areas relate to one another and whilst it is correct to note the role of urban zones as drivers of the economy, any strategic review of systems must incorporate the requirements of rural areas. There is in some quarters the perception that Scottish rural areas are ignored, in terms of economy, land use, regeneration, and regrettably such a view is substantiated in your consultation paper.
Craiglockhart Community Council: The new hierarchy raises a number of issues for communities, amongst which the opportunities for involvement are paramount. The hope must be that the identification of National Developments will be restricted to a very limited range of cases to respect the overall objective of greater involvement.
Currie Community Council: We agree that the more significant the proposal, the more rigorous has to be the process. However minor developments may include items of local concern (such as telecoms masts, privacy, overshadowing and additional traffic) so the system will have to allow for these concerns. We agree that decision-making and appeals should be devolved to local level - but the definition of "local" is not that which most people would recognise. Why should this not actively involve Community Councils or Local Representative Bodies, provided with voting powers? In this context, Community Councils or Local Representative Bodies should be provided with paid executive staff to handle the large quantities of planning documentation received from the Scottish Executive and Local Authorities. It is unrealistic to expect unresourced local people, however well informed, to deal with planning issues without resort to paid advisors -in the same manner as Local Authorities and the Scottish Executive depend on paid staff. We note that wind farms fall into two separate categories -national and local - with different legislation applying to each. This is bound to lead to confusion, particularly as a significant body of opinion questions how a wind farm with propellers static can possibly contribute renewable energy. The perceived economic gains are not matched by the damage to the landscape.
Eaglesham Community Council: Community Councils should retain their right to an input on all four levels of Planning Developments.
Garioch Area Forum of Community Councils: The planning hierarchy does seem to be sensible, although there are concerns. There is a grey area between Major Developments and Local Developments, which needs to be clarified. It is not clear who will decide which development is which. In particular, a large scale housing development is listed as a Major Development, but smaller developments are considered to be Local Developments.
Gatehouse of Fleet Community Council: The new 'Hierarchy for Planning' sets out the types of developments in a clear and informative way.
Grange-Howard Community Council: The hierarchical range of developments, dictated by size and economic and administrative significance, is identified along with the bodies that will deal with them. The essential linkages and interactions between the respective bodies concerned and those of other agencies and authorities on whom co-ordinated planning and development will be dependent, such as the utilities and transport companies, are not given particular mention but clearly effective channels of liaison and agreement will be necessary. Competing interests between authorities and political considerations are understandable but good planning and economic prudence dictate there should be no over provision of infrastructure at national, regional or local levels.
Hillhead Community Council: Among the ill defined areas, the following particularly concern us. 'Controversial' development needs further clarification, particularly as there is to be a different treatment of controversial and any other developments. Where conservation areas are concerned this category should include developments to which a community group has expressed an objection. Developments contrary to the development plan should be included. Unless there is better coordination between guidelines and planning change or development plans, the damage done can be considerable. They may be held over until all areas have been overdeveloped or historic townscape is visually disturbed beyond repair. It should be mandatory that land or areas where the local council has an interest within the preceding three years, or where permission is linked to another application not yet submitted, should be 'controversial'.
Portobello Community Council (and Amenity Society): It is proposed that different planning issues will be addressed in different ways (national, major, local, small-scale developments), but some authorities may label similar developments differently, and so process them differently.
Salsburgh Community Council: The White Papers proposals for a hierarchy of planning will also sort out those proposals where planning friction will occur and will be expected and the further into the planning hierarchy the more robust, transparent and valid the argument for the planning proposals should be. In the end ensuring proper debate and production of supporting evidence to substantiate the development proposals and whether or not permission should be granted for the greater good. Not just for developers to make a fast profit at the expense of the local communities who may have to live for years with the results of bad decision authorisation.
Strathblane Community Council: The proposed hierarchy of planning under pinned through out by community involvement seems to make sense. However we have little understanding as yet of the workings of the national development framework so we are unable to make judgement on this and would wish some reassurance here. We are looking for openness, accountability and transparency from the Scottish Executive who should act in the same way as the best Local Authority. We are keen to see a methodology that ensures that account is taken of cross local authority boundary issues during the consideration of major developments. We are concerned that definitions of 'major' and 'local' development should be tailored and relative to the character and size of the village or town where they will impact most. In addition to this, where to safeguard the environment, planners require environmental impact assessments, these should be independent, as our experience is, when they are requested by planners but paid for by developers, they become advocates for the development.
Voluntary Bodies
Avondale Civic Society: The society in general would accept the hierarchy of planning applications, but this requires proper public involvement at the right stage. It is pointless to have a proposal for a National Development which can be approved at Executive level and then be subject to further delay and objection at local level. The paper seems to indicate that this will be the case. When national decisions are properly made they must move to implementation quickly. To do otherwise negates the logic of a hierarchy
Brethren Gospel Trusts: We welcome the proposed new hierarchy, subject to clarification on how the voluntary and not for profit sector, community providers, including faith groups, proposals will fit into the hierarchy. We would submit that such proposals should normally be treated as 'local developments'. The hierarchy will need to be accompanied by clear thresholds for either site size and/or floor space.
Cockburn Association: Support for the introduction of a hierarchical planning system but seeks reassurances that local communities will have a say at all levels. A hierarchical system makes sense. However we want to know more about how the different categories are defined?
Colinton Amenity Association: The hierarchy proposed appears to be logical, but we have a number of concerns about the details.
Helensburgh Green Belt Group: The HGBG supports the four-way hierarchy for planning decisions given on page 19 onwards in the White Paper, but considers that the issue of local community involvement should be introduced to it. The chart on page 19 omits that aspect.
Helensburgh Study Group: The White Paper's four-way division seems sensible, along with different procedures for each. While supporting the categorisation, there can be reservations about how they get applied. However, this is really public consultation, not involvement as we would define it. The Study Group proposes (see its separate paper on involvement) five actions by community groups not given In the White Paper (i) right for a community to have an "advice pause", (ii) Key Environmental Features designated by the community, (iii) local vision statements/plans as material considerations, (iv) monitoring the Implementation of LOPs and permissions granted, and (v) "local champion" status recognised for certain community groups. (See the separate Helensburgh Study Group paper on Involvement In planning which accompanies the present paper.)
Planning Aid Scotland: There could be a perception by the community of increased centralisation which would run counter to the objective of increased inclusion. The reason for the definition of "national" developments needs more careful explanation.
Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore: The segregation of applications into a hierarchy depending on the impact of the proposal will enable many local decisions to be dealt with by locally elected members who should reflect the feelings of their local community better than the reporters unit. Indeed, I suggest, that for local and minor developments all appeals should be dealt with locally with no appeals to Scottish Ministers, only to the court on a point of law.
Scottish Badgers: We have some concerns that a new hierarchy for planning will at its lower levels fail to meet the criteria of being "fit for purpose" in that it will reduce the efficiency of planners to be able to see the whole picture. The cumulative effect of development, even on a small scale, can have a huge impact on the environment.
Scottish Council for National Parks:SCNP generally welcomes the proposal which would see planning decisions taken at the appropriate level but has some concerns about the possible working arrangements for the hierarchy for planning set out in the White Paper. It should be recognised that the hierarchy proposed represents a considerable centralisation of power and decision taking beyond anything so far experienced
Scottish Environment LINK: While the idea of a hierarchy of development types does not appear to present a problem for environmental NGOs some of the processes associated with their determination certainly serve to reduce some public rights and offer very little in the way of new powers - simply a few more opportunities to be heard.
Scottish Renewables Forum: Scottish Renewables recognises the novel approach being taken by the Scottish Executive in proposing the Hierarchy for Planning. However, we feel it is unclear how renewable energy developments subject to s36 of the Electricity Act will be dealt with in this hierarchy If there is to be a screening process through which renewable energy developments are defined in the context of the hierarchy how might this work? Another question is who will do the screening? The White Paper is unclear on these matters and we would urge the Scottish Executive to consider how this might be done. Having said that, we recognise that renewable energy proposals requiring an EIA are most likely to be placed in the 'major development' category and we expect that, normally, sub-5 MW projects will be classed as local. At this point we would underline the anomaly of small hydro projects being required to apply through s36 of the Electricity Act. Hydro projects larger than 1 MW face the same planning system as wind farms greater in capacity than 50 MW. Scottish Renewables considers this inappropriate and would urge the Scottish Executive to reconsider the thresholds by which hydro power projects are defined in terms of s36 of the Electricity Act.
Scottish Wildlife Trust:SWT sees the value in this approach. We however note an inherent contradiction in the fact that the justification for developments of national importance, as defined by the National Planning Framework, will be subject to less scrutiny than major developments in lower tiers of the development plan hierarchy.
The Council for Scottish Archaeology:CSA is concerned that the proposed hierarchy of developments particularly those called in for Scottish Executive scrutiny at National and Regional level reduces the opportunity for public involvement. We recognise that some of the historic environment concerns will be addressed at both the scoping and through the SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) process, but there is a distinct lack of transparency as to how the final development plans incorporate historic environment (or other) concerns.
The Cramond Association: We support this. However, should there not be statutory consultation, as suggested by the Royal Town Planning Institute? We would be concerned that a National category might allow greater influence from ministers "Appeal" implies reference to a higher authority; what would this be? Also Human Rights Act should be considered. Would decision of Appeal Committee be open to appeal to Scottish ministers? Extension of Permitted Development Rights could have negative effects on environment
The Grange Association: Much mention is made of consultation, involving the public in decisions, pre-consultation discussions on the National Planning Framework ( NPF) and developments at a lower level. For involvement to be meaningful, not merely a token, a mechanism to ensure that the various views are heard, understood, and taken into account is important for the public to have confidence in the system. Helping the public to achieve properly informed views is an essential part of the culture change in planning (p 31) which underlies many of the proposals.
West Kilbride Amenity Society: We welcome this attempt to increase the efficiency and level of participation in the Planning System particularly if it does lead to more community involvement. However we regret the very limited time scale for discussion, knowing that the Planning Bill is already being drafted. This rather contradicts the stated aim to make the planning system more inclusive.
Private Individuals
Anonymous: We approve of the proposal for the re-distribution of cases for planning decisions according to a hierarchy of scale. It can only make sense for major strategic requirements, such as roads, transport, water and waste disposal to be debated and decided centrally. At the other end of the spectrum, the availability of a Planning Handbook which householders could consult has the potential to relieve Planners of large numbers of trivial household alterations.
Barham, Paul: The attempt to address the wide differences of scale and complexity which encompass all which we define as development would also seem to be sensible, as a practical response to the time demands facing development control staff.
Graham, Bob: Not allowing local involvement in large scale (which have strategic or national interest) applications is a clear breach of human rights. I take it that this is to prevent local people objecting to windfarms and the hundreds of miles of associated pylons that the Executive are trying to force through. Not to mention the nuclear power stations that are to be announced in the near future, presumable once this new legislation has been rubber stamped. Renewable energy and in particular windfarms should not come under Section 36 of the electricity act. For example a 20 x 350 foot wind turbine application which has an installed capacity of 49.99 megawatts is decided by local authority (barring interference from SEIRU) yet the same 20 x 350 foot windfarm with an installed capacity of 50 megawatts is decided by the Scottish Executive. Yet both have the same spatial footprint, visual impact and loss of amenity.
Wolff, Sula Dr: I agree fully with the proposed hierarchy for planning
« Previous | Contents | Next »