« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5.1.3: Major Developments
Local Authorities
Aberdeen City Council: Major development need to be very clearly defined to avoid disputes. Lack of resources could result in processing agreements not being reached, the normal determination period would then apply - this is unlikely to be achieved for a major application, with the result that the authority would be liable to repay half the fee. The role of statutory consultees is important in meeting deadlines and their responsibilities in meeting deadlines will need to be formalised. With current resources there would be a risk of either fees being returned or the priority being given to major applications, with others suffering. It is suggested that initially these measures be brought in without the penalty of returning fees, to allow planning authorities to add to and adjust their resources.
Dundee City Council: Supported in principle. However, the Council would wish to be satisfied as to the more precise definition of "major applications" and notes that resourcing this process will be an issue for planning authorities.
East Dunbartonshire: Proposals for processing agreements should be welcomed (this type of programming approach was taken by East Dunbartonshire Council over the Woodilee development and had some merit in assisting the flow of information). The proposal to increase fees in major cases should also be welcomed although it is extremely unlikely that the scale of fees required to adequately address the increased workload for a Planning Authority arising from such major applications (Katrine Water cost an estimated £250,000) would be achieved. The Bill could however have been extended to consider how the processing agreement could be used as a vehicle to identify key milestones for the scoping, submission, validation and consulting on substantial volumes of supporting information would be managed. It would also enable Planning Authorities to agree with developers the likely impact on staffing resources and seek suitably qualified contributions to enable the Authority to back fill with short term contracts to enable it to meet its obligations to other applicants.
East Renfrewshire Council: The time it takes to prepare and replace Plans means that inevitably major proposals will materialise that are not reflected in Development Plans. Procedures need to be considered for such eventualities.
Inverclyde Council: This is a reasonable suggestion in respect of major applications - subject to their definition. Having said that, the time spent in trying to reach such agreements and potential appeals is staff time taken away from processing applications. It remains to be seen if the benefits of this proposal outweigh the dis-benefits. The inference of this proposal is that planning authorities seek to deal with applications as quickly as possible. The White Paper recognises that many delays are down to third party consultees, addressing late objections, and sorting out problems caused by inefficient applicants but the onus is being placed on authorities to prove it in appeals. This will do nothing to produce a slicker planning system.
Moray Council: The White Paper considers these existing developments as being subject to excessive delays and should be given priority. No analysis of the causes of delay is given. Further guidance is required about the types of application to be classified as major together with the scope and content of the required agreement, including definition of the term 'significant' (and similar terms used throughout the White Paper). The agreement will require local authorities to review their procedures for handling these types of application and ensure sufficient resources are available to deal with them. A prerequisite of the agreement must be setting a realistic timetable which requires that full details and all supporting information is supplied at the time of submitting the application. The agreement presumes that all planning consultees have sufficient manpower and resources to respond to the requirements of the planning service: an area over which a local planning authority has no control (management) and consultees will need to form part of and sign up to the agreement. In Moray, major applications tend to be subject to hearings for departure cases but if hearings become mandatory for these and other developments, the agreement must recognise time-tabling requirements to accommodate hearings within the normal committee cycles. This may mean an increased number of (special) meetings to determine applications will be required.
North Lanarkshire Council: Pre-application discussions between applicants and Planning Authorities are currently encouraged. It is noted that processing agreements could however, in themselves, take up a considerable amount of time and resources. Negotiations are expected to involve consultees as well as the Planning Authority and it would be essential to ensure that they are all sufficiently organised and resourced to fulfill any new requirements. The extent to which any refund of fees is appropriate should take into account the amount of work carried out by the Authorities.
Perth & Kinross Council: This is a positive move to prioritise the determination of such proposals, which will remove uncertainty for both applicants and local residents and will improve credibility and regard for the planning system, but is dependent upon clear definition of major developments.
Scottish Borders Council: What is perceived as a major development will vary between authorities and communities. It is important that the definition is sufficiently flexible to adequately reflect the different characteristics of different areas. However it is also important that there is a level of consistency that avoids the system becoming overly complex.
South Ayrshire: It will be essential for there to be a clear threshold within legislation or national policy identifying what constitutes a 'major' development, e.g. minimum retail floorspace, or the number of houses proposed. There may also be practical difficulties if a developer amends the proposal during assessment of the application ( e.g. if the number of houses are reduced and this removes the proposal from the 'major' category does this then require part of the fee to be returned?).
South Lanarkshire Council: It is recognised that in dealing with major developments applicants require to be given some degree of certainty over the timing of their planning application. However, there is some concern that the introduction of formal 'processing agreements' would result in both sides simply seeking to avoid blame in meeting their obligations. This could lead to protracted legal disputes rather than progressing the application to a point it can be determined. There are also potential issues in respect of fees where they would have to be wholly, or partly, returned to the applicant if a Council had failed to meet its obligations or lose an appeal. It is therefore suggested that this proposal be re-considered in a way which seeks to encourage the use of agreement rather than impose significant penalties and that detailed guidance is issued by the Scottish Executive to avoid/minimise the potential for protracted legal disputes.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Defence Estates: Defence Estates support the desire to speed up the decision making process for major developments. We consider that it is essential that further details are produced on how the 'major developments' are defined.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Supports the identification of this group and the priority afforded to it, but have some concerns about how major developments will be defined. It would appear from the White Paper that these will be identified only by size of the development. SEPA would contend that this definition (which determines the priority that should be afforded to the application) should be based upon the overall environmental risk of the development. This would encompass other attributes such as nature of the development, its location, its proximity to other sensitive land uses etc., as well as size. The importance of a development may be a result not just of its size but also of these other issues - for example, a potentially polluting development in a sensitive location may itself not be large in scale, but may well have significant environmental effects which require that the development is prioritised in the hierarchy. Accordingly, SEPA would request that when considering the detailed definition of development types, it is the potential significance of the effect / environmental risk that is the determinant. Guidance on determining what development types fall within each point in the hierarchy will likely be necessary to secure consistent approaches.
The Development Industry
Bett Homes: Bett Homes require clarification on the definition of "major developments". The White Paper is currently silent on this issue and again this cannot be left to Local Authorities to decide. Further detail is required to be published and consulted upon to allow a greater understanding of the potential impact upon future development proposals which could fall into this category.
EDI Group Ltd: The principle of giving priority to the processing of major developments has to be right. The proposal that this should be embodied in a formal agreement between developer and authority will not, on its own, suffice. The sanctions of the return of fees, and an appeal against non-determination, will not bring about quicker decisions. The process has to be better managed and the proposals in the White Paper to increase resources and training, and to change the culture, could help here. Dedicated multi-disciplinary teams should be set up to process major development applications.
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): In respect of the new proposed hierarchy and major developments, we support the desire to speed up the decision making process for major developments. We consider that it is essential that further details are produced on how the 'major developments' are defined.
Persimmon Homes: The identification and prioritisation of Major developments is welcomed. Processing Agreements and increased fees may increase certainty but the penalties for LAs failing to meet their targets should be made clear. The ability to recoup fees via successful appeals against non-determination is not adequate recompense for poor performance.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: With regards National Developments, although broadly supportive of this category, we are of the view that these proposals do not account for a significant proportion of planning applications. So far as the housebuilding industry and general development sector is concerned, the benefits of sieving them out from the main stream planning system are limited. The only advantage of Major Developments over Local Developments is the automatic right of appeal to an independent Reporter.
Other Businesses
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: With regard to the proposals for major developments, our understanding is that these will not differ greatly from the current system. However, if large scale, significant developments are to be identified and prioritised by the planning authorities, it will be essential that the development plans are up to date.
British Energy: .The proposed statutory requirement to engage with local people at pre-application stage for major development proposals is welcome. We would suggest that clear guidance is provided on the extent and type of consultation required.
Scottish Environmental Services Association ( SESA): Sees no benefit in "major" applications being considered by the full council. We support the status quo as members of the Planning Committee have received specialist training and possess more experience.
Tarmac Ltd: Can appreciate the benefits from enhancing the primacy of the development plan but would highlight the serious implications of the suggested need to have quarry proposals identified in advance in the local plan. In order to have some certainty that allocations will come to fruition and to help aid SEA of relevant plans, I envisage that extensive environmental information, similar to EIA and more or less the full information that would be needed at application will be required at the allocation stage. Moreover from my experience, planning authorities in Scotland are generally reluctant to make any allocations for mineral development and the proposals could amount in practice to a major shift in mineral planning, more akin to an allocation system practised in England and Wales. This is not contemplated in the concurrent consultation exercise on SPP4 and naturally any proposals in the white paper should correlate therewith. In connection with more general aspects of the proposals for major developments, in general we are naturally in favour of a more efficient process albeit are anxious (a) about the ability get considered and timeous responses from statutory consultees and (b) the flexibility to cater for changes to proposals ( e.g. those which might properly result from EIA.) without being subject to abuse on commitments.
Tesco Stores Ltd: Devolved local decision-making is the key to encouraging greater public, and business, involvement in the planning system. Developments with only a local impact should, wherever possible, be decided locally, and not be subject to referrals or call-ins. Defining what constitutes "major" development is therefore a key challenge, and we feel the White Paper is a little unclear. We would support a definition of "major" development which is consistent with current approaches and procedures, for example the 10,000 sq m limit for automatic referrals of retail developments. Adopting the same figure as the threshold for defining major retail developments would provide continuity and certainty to applicants, and other stakeholders. There is a need to clearly define what constitutes "major" development to avoid unnecessary referrals and call-ins, which would lead to delay.
UNITE Group plc: Typically, UNITE would aim to develop buildings to accommodate several hundred units which may well fall within the category of Major Developments. UNITE would welcome the timely determination of such applications and is 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, UNITE believes that further clarification is necessary from the Scottish Executive on the scope of major developments and fee schedules in due course.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): In respect of the new proposed hierarchy and major developments, we support the desire to speed up the decision making process for major developments. We consider that it is essential that further details are produced on how the 'major developments' are defined.
Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC: We are not convinced that the proposed measures would achieve that outcome including the use of "Processing Agreements" and increasing application fees. For example, this would not necessarily result in quicker or better decisions and claiming unreasonable behaviour to reclaim application fees would be open to interpretation and incur additional costs to Morrisons. The ability for local authorities to set their own application fees is not supported. For instance it introduces a degree of uncertainty in the development process as it would not be easy to predict particularly at the outcome of the process.
Professional Organisations
Institute of Civil Engineers Scotland: We have concerns that local authorities will continue to need to process statutory consultations and may also have an application passed back to them by the Executive for determination
RICS Scotland:RICS Scotland notes that secondary legislation is proposed to categorise major development. We are unsure why this cannot be introduced into the primary legislation and would welcome further clarification on this matter. We believe that the success of this proposal will depend on transparency and clarity from the development industry but we stress that this must be complemented by clear guidance from the planning authorities. We feel that this process will be facilitated by appropriate pre-application consultation, which is currently not always available.
Scottish Association of University Directors of Estates: The implications for the HE/ FE sector, as key building occupiers and landowners, relate to an increase in fees due to new procedures for major developments. This is currently particularly relevant in the current climate with considerable development being undertaken and planned within the sector. However, this procedure should speed up the process and increase certainty, which is to be welcomed.
SSDP: There is a general agreement in principle with the concept of processing agreements. An increase in application fees for major developments to reflect the true cost of processing applications should be adopted in any event. The Society is worried that the introduction of increased fees and processing agreements may result in a two tier system. The concept of processing agreements requires to be explored further with an emphasis on improved management arrangements within local authorities
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Drivers Jonas: In respect of the new proposed hierarchy and major developments, we support the desire to speed up the decision making process for major developments. We consider that it is essential that further details are produced on how the 'major developments' are defined.
GVA Grimley LLP: Believes that further clarification is necessary from the Scottish Executive on the scope of major developments and fee schedules in due course.
Hargest & Wallace Planning: There are key differences proposed between the treatment of major and local developments. It will be essential, therefore, that there is very clear guidance to ensure consistency between authorities about what is or is not major. This will, however, need to take into account the context of the development proposal (cf Schedule 2 developments for EIAs).
Maclay, Murray & Spens: If large scale, significant developments are to be identified and prioritised by the planning authorities, it will be essential that the development plans are up to date (see comments below). We also remain sceptical about the suggestion that the developers and the local authorities will agree timetables for the processing of applications. Whilst we wholly support the need for meaningful discussions at an early stage, what is to be done to ensure that the various statutory consultees such as SEPA, SNH, Scottish Water and local authority roads departments will be willing to engage in meaningful discussions in those timescales ?
Turley Associates: The definition of major development is perhaps too narrow and is not likely to capture enough planning applications to have any significant effect on the current system.
Warren Consultants: In principle, we obviously agree that it is desirable that all of the information that is required to make a decision on an application is presented at the outset. However, this rule must be subject to a judgement on reasonableness. For example, some proposals can take a long time to reach a decision particularly if subject to appeal or where they have been called-in. During the processing of the application there may have been new developments e.g. new Scottish Executive guidance, changes in Development Plans, new census information, new economic data etc. Unforeseen issues can arise, e.g. as a result of neighbour or community consultation.
Community Councils
Currie Community Council: It is unclear what scope there is for the public to comment on "Major Developments". It seems these can be fast-tracked through the planning system with locally elected representatives empowered to approve these, though this is not entirely clear. It is stated that some major developments are subject to "excessive delay", by local authorities. Perhaps the "excessive delay" has at least in part been incurred by developers failing to provide the information required to support their application. Perhaps it has been because the weight of public opinion has caused the Local Authority to review the application more closely. And perhaps it is because the developer is attempting to flout the Development Plan by, for example, building on the Green Belt. We have experienced all these situations, and more. The text gives the impression that the developer has a right to build where he wants but this is not the case. Applicants who are refused permission by a Local Authority may claim that the process is unfair to them, but democracy takes priority, not their commercial desires. We have a responsibility' for the environment to future generations.
Greengairs Community Council and Greengairs Environmental Forum: One issue we consider could be a problem with the criteria for major developments is the lack of any legislation relating to cumulative impact, and the potential for multiple small scale planning applications to accumulate over a few months into a Major Development. In the past few months we have been notified of planning applications for several housing developments within two villages. Individually, the applications would not constitute major developments however collectively, if they were all approved, it would double the number of homes in the two villages - definitely a major development. We are concerned that there is a potential for planning applications to be submitted in stages to avoid being referred to the Scottish Ministers as a Major Development. This already happens at a local level as a means to avoiding providing green space or community benefit. Neighbour notification should be extended to a greater area for Major Developments and developments that have the potential to have a major impact on the public and/or environment should be included. Again access to expert advice and assistance is crucial to ensure a "level playing field" for the public during the consultation process and at Public Inquiries.
Kennoway Community Council: The removal of the determination of Major Development from locally elected members distances the decision-making from the residents of the area and conflicts with the statement about greater public participation. We support the proposal on "Hearings" relative to Major Developments.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: Until we see the secondary legislation specifying the categories of development which are to be defined as 'Major' it is difficult to comment. Indeed, many of these proposals come forward on an 'ad-hoc' basis and their incorporation into a development plan is not often possible. On the Local Authority side there should be a mandatory requirement for development sites over a certain size and identified with a particular land-use in the Development Plan to be subject to a design and development brief prepared in advance by the planning department.
Pitlochry & Moulin Community Council: The fact that the Executive can make decisions on Major developments i.e. windfarms, powerlines etc without the local area having the moneys to object is wrong. This can make a huge impact on rural residents & requires the inquiry process to be retained.
Ythan Community Council: Ythan Community Council supports the proposal to consult the community on major developments. There should be further guidance on the description of 'major development' A housing development of 3-5 properties or a single industrial/business unit may be considered major and have a substantial impact on a small rural community.
Voluntary Organisations
Planning Aid Scotland: Processing agreements and enhanced fees - there is a need to present these arrangements in a manner that relates to the improvement of structured community participation and not to give the impression that the local authority would no longer be in a position to make an impartial decision.
Portobello Campaign against the Superstore: It is stated that the success of processing major developments depends on transparency and clarity from the development industry. This industry has a long history of deception and pursuit of high profits over a community's well-being and it will have to change its culture significantly to gain wide acceptance of trust from communities. Scottish Council for Single Homeless ( SCSH):SCSH has welcomed the development of planning policies in certain areas of Scotland which introduce quotas of affordable rented accommodation in new developments. Whilst we believe that under the new proposals it should be possible to impose such a policy under the 'major developments' heading, we have concerns that development plans at local level may not be sufficient for this.
« Previous | Contents | Next »