« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Processing Agreements
Local Authorities
Aberdeenshire Council: Similar penalties should be laid against applicants for failure to comply with timetabled agreements in processing applications.
Argyll & Bute Council: The scale of these developments would need to be clearly defined and could result in "forced refusals" in order to meet timescales and avoid fee penalties and could effectively be counter productive. In terms of public perception there are concerns that assumptions may be made, by the community if not the developer, that by entering into a contract the Council has pre-determined that planning permission will be granted. There is a need for clarity of what would be expected by way of consultation to ensure that it was meaningful and that it was the appropriate community of interest.
City of Edinburgh Council: Support in principle but need explicit guidance on use of processing agreements and relationship to major developments not identified in development plan.
Dundee City Council: Wishes to be satisfied as to the implications on statutory application processing timescales where negotiations and consultations appear to be required within a 28 day period included within the statutory 2 month period and where the right of appeal against non determination is available to applicants. This is particularly important as it is proposed to invoke a refund of half the planning fee for successful non determination appeals. Highlights that timeous and comprehensive involvement of statutory consultees will be important. Highlights that no mention is made of sanctions on the applicant when it adjudged that they, as opposed to the planning authority, have defaulted on the agreement. A time related financial sanction on the applicant would appear appropriate.
East Lothian Council: The proposals for processing agreements for major developments are ill thought out, one sided and very unattractive to planning authorities. All of the responsibility and liability for sanctions is placed on the planning authority. There is no evidence that the development industry will provide the quality of information needed or that key consultees have the inclination or capacity to participate in pre-application discussions to the degree anticipated. The need to deal efficiently with major developments is not disputed, however far more thought requires to be given to these proposals
East Renfrewshire Council: The introduction of processing agreements is in theory worthy of further consideration. However, it will place a significant extra burden on Councils and the extra work this will generate must be reflected in the increased fees. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the Applicant would accept the terms of the proposed agreement which could result in wasted effort. The timescale of 28 days is considered unrealistic. Furthermore, the statutory periods for determination, particular the 2 months period, will be difficult enough to meet for major proposals, even with a processing agreement in place. Consequently, it would be appropriate for these to be reviewed for this type of development where there is no processing agreement. It is considered unreasonable for the full fee to be returned since the Planning Authority will still have to process and determine the Application. A fairer penalty would be the cost of the difference between the normal fee and the expedited process free.
Falkirk Council: The need for 'processing agreements' is questionable. One of the main reasons for the length of time taken, to process major applications is because inadequate information is submitted by applicants at the registration stage. To make a difference, such agreements would require the applicant to have submitted all of the supporting information required registration. However if this was made clear in the regulations and a realistic timescale allowed for major applications, there would be less need to enter into a formal agreement. The time taken to negotiate a "processing agreement" could be much better spent processing the application if the supporting information is available. This would also help with Section 75 Agreements which are often further causes of delay but are increasingly being relied upon to deliver priority infrastructure and services related to new developments. A model agreement used across Scotland could help but detailed consideration needs to be given to the benefits of this approach and to other options before this proposal is pursued further.
Glasgow City Council: This proposal does not appear to acknowledge that, often, the timescale for determining an application cannot be accurately conceived at the outset and that meeting the timescale is often outwith the local planning authority's control e.g. where the applicant is required to conduct further detailed assessments or where other agencies/bodies require to be consulted. There is concern over the possible implications of this proposal in the absence of further information. No two applications are the same, in terms of the applicant's modus operandi, the detail of the proposal itself, etc. How would a realistic timescale be identified? The length of time it takes to produce information is outwith the planning authority's control and could affect timescales. All such matters cannot always reasonably be identified during pre-application discussions; and the punitive measures appear biased towards the planning authority, e.g. reimbursement of half the fees if the authority has acted unreasonably, and reimbursement of all fees if no agreement used and the processing timescale is not met. This is bureaucratic and unfair. Developers can also act unreasonably and there may be good reason for not processing an application within a given timescale ( e.g. developer seeks to introduce variations, proposal is not meeting all policy requirements, etc). There will be organisational and project management implications to be considered in respect of how best to deliver this proposal; and additional resources could be required.
Midlothian Council: While the principle of a "processing agreement" may be worthy of support, there are a number of practical difficulties. If we take major housing applications arising out of the Midlothian and Shawfair Local Plans as an example, all of these involve lengthy processes relating to developer contributions. For these applications, the drafting of the 'processing agreement" is likely to involve considerable guesswork in terms of predicting the timescale for resolving these S75 agreements. There is also likely to be uncertainty arising from infrastructure requirements such as water and drainage. In other words, "processing agreements" could well end up needing to be revised fairly frequently. If this proved to be the case, then rather than achieving efficiencies, they could turn out to be wasteful of resources.
Renfrewshire Council: Processing agreements would provide the opportunity for the local authority and the developer to agree a reasonable timescale for major applications and increased fees will be made available. However the system should work as a double edged sword if penalties are brought in against the planning authority if it defaults then a penalty should be available against a developer who does not co-operate in fulfilling his obligations eg submission in full of necessary documentation such as transport assessment, retail impact assessment, environmental assessment, at the time of application submission and not responding to requests for additional information/amended plans etc., timeously. A suggested penalty would be the refusal of the application for lack of information requiring a new submission with full fee payment due. In addition the co-operation of statutory consultees will be essential to make such agreements work.
Scottish Borders Council: The principle of processing agreements is supported but in practice it is unlikely that authorities will voluntarily enter into such agreements where there are recruitment problems and/or where their ability to deliver may be affected by consultee response times over which they have no control.
Shetland Islands Council's (interim response): We regard the proposal for processing agreements with some caution. We note the proposal in Appendix 4 that, where the Council and the developer are unable to reach a processing agreement within a 28-day period, the normal periods for processing the application will apply, and that the applicant will have the right to a refund of half the planning application fee. We consider that one of the most likely causes of a failure to agree would be the unwillingness of consultees to guarantee a response in the necessary time scale. This problem is acknowledged in Appendix 4 in the discussion of what happens when the terms of an agreement are not met, but it applies equally to the difficulty of reaching agreement in the first place.
South Ayrshire: It is therefore imperative that authorities are able to satisfy themselves before registering an application that they have all the requisite information from the developer, to allow the best opportunity for determining the application according to the terms of its processing agreement. If Government accepts this proposition, then this will require changes to secondary legislation on registration of applications. Even in these circumstances however, it will often be the case that information required to properly assess an application is not known about until the assessment period is underway, for example as a result of the comments of a statutory consultee.
West Dunbartonshire Council: The introduction of processing agreements has merit in leading to more certainty for developers whilst recognising the impossibility of dealing with complex applications within two months. As with much of the White Paper details remain to be clarified. Local authorities should not be penalised (fees refunded) if the reason for delay is outstanding consultation responses (including from Historic Scotland and Trunk Roads) or failure by the applicant to submit required information.
West Lothian Council: An increase in planning fees for major development to reflect the true cost of processing applications is to be welcomed. However, further research on the implications of the 'processing agreement' mechanism is required to determine if the additional resourcing of development control was feasible and practical. West Lothian Council will be willing to partner the Scottish Executive in any such exercise. This further research should examine the introduction of a sliding scale of reimbursement depending on the length of delay. This may be written into the agreement. To allow this to be effective, the authority must have the right to demand that all information and supporting statements are submitted prior to the registration of the application. Concern must be expressed about the pressure that may be exerted on the planning authority to determine applications before the applications are ready for decision, or without full regard to community opinion.
Other LA Organisations
COSLA: Believes that it is in the interests of both individual planning authorities and in the wider economic interests of Scotland that a positive dialogue is maintained here. However, we are also clear that it is just as much the responsibility of developers to 'play fair' with planning authorities in ensuring that all relevant documentation is submitted on time, in order that the application process is not delayed by them as applicant. Developers must also take seriously their duties to consult communities as proposed in the White Paper. By doing this, communities will gain a sense of inclusion and the arguments around the majority of third party rights of appeal claims are likely to be reduced.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Defence Estates: We consider that there may be difficulties in identifying realistic timescales within which the application could be processed under the proposed Processing Agreement. The timescales may require to be varied to deal with issues which emerge during the application process. The statutory consultees can cause delays to planning applications, for example when responding to EIA consultations. If penalties are to be introduced for planning authorities, then they should also be introduced for statutory consultees.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Agreeing a timescale for decision making between the interested parties represents a practical step, although this may cause some difficulties in practice - for example, ensuring that the applicant provides all required information to the Planning Authority and statutory consultees with sufficient time to meet the agreed deadlines. SEPA is slightly concerned that the emphasis in agreeing decision timescales is upon speed rather than ensuring that the effects of the development are clearly understood. It is imperative that agreement of timescales builds in adequate provision for the collation and interpretation of appropriate information required for consultees and the planning authority to provide an informed view on the application. Many of these developments will, of course, be EIA developments which will require appropriate information about environmental effects prior to decision making.
Other Public Bodies
Central Scotland Forest Trust:CSFT supports the agreement of a timetable between applicant and planning authority - this should reduce appeals due to non-determination.
Development Industry
Bett Homes: Although it is expected that planning application fees are likely to increase as a result of the proposal, this will only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that such an approach would result in a more efficient and reliable decision-making process. However, Bett Homes is concerned that the White Paper is silent on the issue of reasonable timescales for determining planning applications. It is suggest that prior to this proposal being implemented that further debate is initiated between the development industry, Planning Authorities and the Executive to agree standard timescales and fees for certain scales of planning applications. These standards would then be implemented across Scotland. We would also promote that should targets outlined in processing agreements fail to be met that financial penalties are put in place e.g. re-imbursement of planning fees to applicants at the very least.
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): We consider that there may be difficulties in identifying realistic timescales within which the application could be processed under the proposed Processing Agreement. The timescales may require to be varied to deal with issues which emerge during the application process. The statutory consultees can cause delays to planning applications, for example when responding to EIA consultations. If penalties are to be introduced for planning authorities then they should also be introduced for statutory consultees. Further clarification is required as to the procedure if the local authority does not meet the terms of the Processing Agreement due to a slow response from statutory consultees. Is the full fee refundable in this instance?
Grosvenor Investments: These agreements would be very useful as it is important to know who the lead officer with decision making capability in the planning office is, relevant to each development. This timetable would also help us to plan accordingly. However, it is essential that the timescales are adhered to.
Homes for Scotland: Processing agreements are supported in principle but the final arrangements for putting them into practice need to be discussed and further consideration given to their detailed implementation. We see a number of difficulties should they be introduced. The proposed processing agreement only covers the period between the submission of the planning application and the granting of planning permission. In our experience, the major slippage in time tends to be prior to that. The processing agreement does not cover, for example, pre-application discussions. It seems to be common practice not to minute such discussions and in the absence of minutes of meetings, developers are vulnerable to other planning staff and possibly members taking a different view on a proposed development at a later stage, resulting in delay and possibly abortive expenditure. We note that penalties appear only to occur if the applicant is successful on appeal and not if the agreement is not satisfied in the first place. Indeed, once the agreement is put in place, except for an agreed event, it should be adhered to or all (or a substantial part) of the planning application fee is returned. Homes for Scotland is therefore unenthusiastic about the various sanctions proposed for non-performance. To apply them would involve considerable wasteful effort on both sides with little prospect of producing a constructive result. Efforts would be much better directed to trying to recover the programme as far as possible and delivering new development efficiently. Apart from the planning brief, there are many other matters which should be initiated before a realistic submission can be made and which will fall outwith the scope of a processing agreement. Where applicable, these include environmental assessments, geotechnical investigations, archaeological surveys, traffic impact analyses and similar matters. In our view, consultations with the statutory consultees should also have been begun by developers before the submission is made. Homes for Scotland would be happy to amplify views on a proposed revised procedure for the processing of planning applications, which would result in a less haphazard and uncoordinated approach.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): Although there are currently 8 and 16 week (for EIA proposals) determination timetables, in practice many applicants do not appeal against non-determination following expiry of these timetables, allowing planning authorities additional time to consider schemes where, for example, the views of statutory consultees are awaited. The current proposals formalise these current 'procedures' and also introduce a degree of flexibility, which allows applicants to appeal to Ministers where a decision has not been forthcoming within an agreed timetable. The proposals to refund all or part of the application fee in successful appeals is a progressive step.
Manor Kingdom Group: Processing agreements are supported in principle but the final arrangements for putting them into practice need to be discussed and further consideration given to their detailed implementation. The proposed processing agreement only covers the period between the submission of the planning application and the granting of planning permission. The processing agreement does not cover, for example, pre-application discussions. It seems to be common practice not to minute such discussions and in the absence of minutes of meetings, developers are vulnerable to other planning staff and possibly members taking a different view on a proposed development at a later stage, resulting in delay and possibly abortive expenditure. The planner's view should represent a corporate local authority view. Manor Kingdom is therefore unenthusiastic about the various sanctions proposed in Appendix 4 of the White Paper for non-performance. To apply them would involve considerable wasteful effort on both sides with little prospect of producing a constructive result. Apart from the planning brief, there are many other matters which will fall outwith the scope of a processing agreement. Where applicable, these include environmental assessments, geo-technical investigations, archaeological surveys, traffic impact analyses and similar matters.
Stewart Milne Holdings: With regard to processing agreements it is not considered appropriate that penalties for non - compliance only appear to come into force following a successful appeal by an aggrieved applicant. This is clearly inappropriate given the cost and risk of the appeal approach.
Stewart Milne Homes: We welcome the principle of processing agreements as it will help provide a greater amount of certainty in the planning process. However, there should be some kind of recompense to the developer if the local authority does not keep to the timescale set out in the processing agreement.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: Major developments, into which many housing developments are likely to fall, will have the added burden of having to negotiate a "processing agreement" with a planning authority and pay for the privilege through increased planning fees. Setting reasonable extended deadlines by mutual agreement, can only add time delays into an already slow process. There is a concern that the timescales proposed by the local authorities will seek to build in additional slack in order to ensure that performance standards are met. Again, as regular users of the current system, we are unable to see how this will produce a more responsive or efficient planning system. The suggestion that failure to agree processing agreements and subsequent refunds of part of the planning fee for successful non-determined planning appeals is inconsequential when compared to the cost to the development industry arising from delay. The offer of full refunds, again on the basis of a successful appeal against non-determination, where an agreement was in place but not met, is also derisory having regard to the cost of delay ( e.g. 6 month processing agreement > deemed refusal > appeal determined within 11 months = almost year and half from submission to determination). There is no incentive to succeed when you know that a developer would probably wait a few more months, beyond the Agreement date, rather than a year to get a decision by appeal. Given some of the recent appeal decisions which we have experienced the risk involved in appealing would also put a developer off pursuing that just to get his application fee refunded.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: The proposal to enter into an agreement with the planning authority is welcome but it is essential that the statutory consultees are bound by this agreement too. The White Paper is not clear on the parties to such an agreement
Other Businesses
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: We 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 SEP A, SNH, Scottish Water and local authority roads departments will be willing to engage in meaningful discussions in those timescales. Furthermore, it is becoming more apparent that local authorities unnecessarily overlap the duties of the statutory enforcement agencies.
ASDA: Any processing agreement will need to have the full cooperation of statutory consultees if it is to deliver a decision on time. It would be more beneficial, therefore, if a means could be found of involving statutory consultees in such agreements. It is not clear that refund of the additional application fee is sufficient penalty for failure to meet an agreed timetable.
Association of Electricity Producers We broadly support the proposed system of processing agreements. However, the timescales within the agreements should allow adequate time for proposals to be considered to ensure high quality decisions are made. We also have some concerns over the proposal to refund half the application fee if a processing agreement can not be reached in 28 days. The financial loss arising from a failure to secure agreement would far outweigh the refund of half the application fee. We have some concern that delays to processing agreements might be caused by consultees being unable to respond within 28 days. If they required longer to respond, delays in reaching processing agreements could be caused. There should be incentives and requirements for efficiency placed on councils. Where one department within a particular council is causing delays, the planning department of that council should be considered responsible for that delay rather than the developer. This would encourage efficiency and effectiveness throughout all relevant local authority departments. There may also be cases where local authorities fail on a consistent basis to meet deadlines for determination resulting in an increase in the number of appeals. This will put a strain on the planning inspectorate who, in addition to being responsible for the proposal will also be required to investigate the conduct of the planning authority. Adequate resourcing will be essential to the successful implementation of the proposals
British Energy: We see some merit in the Processing Agreement proposal to be set up between local authorities and applicants. However we can envisage circumstances where agreement on timescales and fees between parties will not be reached. There may also be cases where local authority's fail on a consistent basis to meet deadlines for determination resulting in an increase in the number of appeals. This will put a strain on the planning inspectorate who, in addition to being responsible for determining proposals will also be required to investigate the conduct of the host planning authority. Again, adequate resourcing will be essential to the successful implementation of the proposals
Federation of Small Businesses: We welcome the principle of processing agreements between planning authorities and developers. It is appropriate that such a mechanism be put in place to deal with chronic delays with this type of development. However, many of the applications submitted by FSB members will be 'local' developments and it is important that the timely processing of these applications does not become less important as a result of the fear of losing fee income from a larger application which is subject to an agreement.
Quarry Products Association (Scotland): With respect to processing agreements there must be a clear mechanism to allow sanctions against a planning authority should they fail to adhere to agreed deadlines.
Scottish Chambers of Commerce: The proposed scheme of timetables ought to bring a new transparency, accountability and predictability to the process. The challenge will be to ensure this is adhered to and for both parties to be realistic.
Scottish Environmental Services Association ( SESA): Supports the principle of a processing agreement, however, its success entirely depends on the allocation of adequate resources by the planning authority and statutory consultees. Processing agreement could help to strengthen the project management skills of local authority officers. Producing a timetable setting out when a decision will be made will help the applicant and financial institutions more effectively to quantify costs. That said, the success of processing agreements depends on adequate resources being allocated by the planning authority and statutory consultees. Consequently we believe agreements should specify the resource that will be allocated and the person(s) managing the application. SESA recognises that the Executive has tried to introduce measures which act against processing agreements from being broken. We welcome these but believe three further measures are necessary. First, the Executive rightly recognises the important role of pre-application discussion and engagement of communities. Both of these help to address issues raised by members of the public before the application is submitted and therefore the processing agreement should set-and stick to-a deadline for comments from residents. Second, the Executive should not allow a processing agreement to be extended more than twice. Third, to ensure that statutory consultees also honour a processing agreement we see merit in introducing a statutory requirement for statutory consultees to respond within 28 days of receiving a request for comments/information from the local authority. To measure the performance of statutory consultees each should then be required annually to report to Parliament on the number of occasions they have failed to meet this deadline.
Scottish Power: We support the principle of Processing Agreements for National, Major and Local projects, where appropriate. Processing Agreements could be a useful tool and any programming of an application should be tied into committee dates.
SITA ( UK) Ltd: Whilst this concept is worthy, it is unlikely to prove successful 'on the ground' if the additional resources the Paper acknowledges are required do not become available. Applicants would also quickly become disillusioned with processing agreements, preferring to rely on statutory provisions. It is quite common for delays in determining applications to be the result of the late receipt of responses from statutory consultees, or from prolonged response exchanges. The Company is of the view that the modernisation of the planning system should put into place measures to monitor delays in the determination process resulting from statutory consultees, and include sanctions if required.
Tarmac Ltd: Processing agreements would appear in simple terms to allow a planning authority a longer period of time for determining planning applications, which, if breached, may lead to planning application fees being repaid. Given the potential exposure to repaying fees, we are concerned that planning authorities might be over cautious and be inclined to promote very lengthy determination periods within agreements. Such periods in turn would be unacceptable to developers, resulting in no agreement being made. We would therefore suggest that a maximum determination period for a processing agreement (that could be extended with the developers consent). Similarly there could be a rush to premature determination. I acknowledge the concerns from the white paper that planning authority compliance can be hindered by late consultation responses. I wonder therefore whether multi party agreements with the statutory consultees might be a way forward.
Tesco Stores Ltd: Tesco welcome the suggestion that in order to deal with major development applications in a reasonable time-scale the applicant and planning authority should agree on a realistic timetable for the planning application to be determined, to be set out in terms of an agreement between the parties.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): We consider that there may be difficulties in identifying realistic timescales within which the application could be processed under the proposed Processing Agreement. The timescales may require to be varied to deal with issues which emerge during the application process. The statutory consultees can cause delays to planning applications, for example when responding to EIA consultations. If penalties are to be introduced for planning authorities then they should also be introduced for statutory consultees. Further clarification is required as to the procedure if the local authority does not meet the terms of the Processing Agreement due to a slow response from statutory consultees. Is the full fee refundable in this instance?
WBB Minerals: How is this to be arbitrated in the event that agreement cannot be reached? The period of 2 months for smaller developments and four months for the determination of EIA developments, should be statutory. The provisions regarding the return of the planning application fee will help focus the LPA in to making properly considered decisions within approved timescales.
Professional Organisations
RICS Scotland: The agreements for a timescale for approval are welcomed for major developments and we suggest that you may wish to consider introducing these for local developments as well. We note the proposals for Processing Agreements. While we support the principle of Planning Agreements, we are concerned that agreeing the processing agreement itself could delay the system and add to costs, unless a standard agreement can be devised.
RTPI Scotland: We support the proposals for processing agreements for major developments and suggest that a similar contract should be entered by the Executive with applicants in the case of called-in developments. We would favour, however, the retention of the fee by the planning authority hence an alternative form of arrangement would be required to protect the applicants' interests.
The Law Society of Scotland: The possibilities of processing agreements between major developers and planning authorities to secure efficient and predictable progress with the application are welcomed. However, the sanction for failing to comply with a process agreement for 'major developments' requires further thought. Some members felt that there may be scope for resource transfer from developers on a voluntary basis to keep a Council to achieve delivery dates. A straightforward financial penalty for non compliance will hardly help a planning authority to progress an application efficiently. It is acknowledged however that a financial penalty would concentrate minds and may be justified whenever delay is avoidable and is not caused by circumstances outwith the planning authority's control. It would be important with major applications for all external consultation agencies, for example, to be included in the agreement arrangements, and their involvement and compliance should be mandatory. However, for the success of the mechanism it would be important to ensure that planning authorities did not simply refuse to enter an agreement in order to avoid sanction, or refuse the application to avoid penalties.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Bell & Scott: We have some concerns over the likely effectiveness of "Processing Agreements". Not only will the negotiation of such Agreements in itself add to the process but we are aware that a number of developers have a concern that such agreements will simply be used as a "breathing space" by planning authorities who will only look seriously at applications towards the end of the agreed period.
Collar, Neil: It is important that these applications are prioritised by planning authorities, but having processing agreements will not necessarily result in prioritisation. It is inevitable that local authorities will be cautious in estimating the timetable for determination of the application, given the potential financial implications of not fulfilling the processing agreement. Also, delays are often caused by statutory consultees. Why are processing agreements not proposed for national developments?
Colliers CRE: Processing agreements for planning applications for major developments are welcomed. It is considered that the return of the planning application fee should be on an incremental basis regarding both the period of time and the reasoning for not meeting the terms of the stated agreement. This would provide a degree of flexibility, where a statutory consultee was not responding quickly enough.
Drivers Jonas: We consider that there may be difficulties in identifying realistic timescales within which the application could be processed under the proposed Processing Agreement. The timescales may require to be varied to deal with issues which emerge during the application process. The statutory consultees can cause delays to planning applications, for example when responding to EIA consultations. If penalties are to be introduced for planning authorities then they should also be introduced for statutory consultees. Further clarification is required as to the procedure if the local authority does not meet the terms of the Processing Agreement due to a slow response from statutory consultees. Is the full fee refundable in this instance?
Hargest & Wallace Planning: The overall process of agreeing timetables and the penalties to planning authorities is supported subject to the following:
- enhanced fee rates should be set centrally and not by individual planning authorities
- a clear indication of when a planning authority acts "unreasonably" should be provided. This cannot be the same as the current basis for claims for expenses at inquiries (which are only rarely granted) since the planning authority would have signed up to an agreed timetable.
- A major issue will be to ensure that statutory consultees also respond timeously - therefore there should be penalties for these as well - e.g. failure to respond results in their concerns being ignored or discounted (if possible) or financial penalties.
Major developments should also include those not foreseen in the development plan. In essence the categorisation of major developments should not be contingent on inclusion within the development plan. Resourcing planning departments is necessary to make this proposal work. It is a requirement, therefore, the local authorities should direct sufficient resources to planning teams (this applies to both development control/management and development plans). Local authorities should be penalised/incentivised to ensure that this occurs.
Keppie Planning Ltd: Regards the proposal to introduce "processing agreements", we have concerns about how this will be managed/enforced.
MBM Planning & Development: The proposals for Processing Agreements are to be welcomed. However in many cases it is not just the major applications that take too long to be determined. The introduction of these agreements may result in those proposals which do not require an agreement (Local Developments) to be further delayed as the authorities focus their attention on meeting agreements on the major applications, to avoid being accused of acting unreasonably and having application fees refunded.
Muir Smith Evans: We welcome the proposal to introduce processing agreements for major applications. However, we consider that the success of this will be dependent on a number of factors including: (1) the willingness of planning authorities to engage in meaningful pre-application discussions, making available officers whose input to that process will not be countermanded by a more senior officer after the application has been submitted; and (2) the willingness of a range of bodies including Scottish Water, SEPA, SNH, and councils' own roads and transportation departments, to engage in meaningful pre-application discussions and to agree to strict timetables regarding the consultations which will be undertaken once the application has been formally submitted.
Paull & Williamson: We do not think the sanction for failing to comply with the timetable agreed under a processing agreement for 'major' developments is sufficient. If the fee has been increased to enable the planning authority to deliver on such agreements, it is reasonable to expect that an effective sanction should apply in the event of default. A possible sanction would be to impose the costs of an appeal against a deemed refusal following a failure to comply with a processing agreement on the planning authority -whatever the outcome of the appeal. However, it will be necessary to ensure that planning authorities do not simply refuse applications so as to meet the timetable and avoid a sanction. This might be controlled through a greater willingness to award expenses on appeal in the event of a planning authority being unable to demonstrate sound reasons for refusal.
Academic Bodies
University of Edinburgh: The UoE welcomes the introduction of "Processing Agreements" for Major Developments. Processing Agreements will assist in encouraging local authorities to properly resource their development management function and will increase certainty for the applicant in terms of timescale. However, the expectation of the UoE engaging in this process is that they should experience a more responsive, efficient and speedy service from the planning authorities.
Community Councils
Culter Community Council: we are puzzled and greatly concerned that these need to be prioritised and rushed through with unseemly haste within an 8 week period. This will not, in our opinion, lead to changing public perception or acceptance of the new system as being more transparent or fairer than the old. On moving from an approved Development Plan to actual planning applications the 'devil can be in the detail'. Local people and groups may find their perception of the agreements reached in principle during consultations and the formulation of the approved Plan may differ significantly from the developer's. We consider that for major developments there should be a statutory
requirement for pre-application consultations by developers with local communities as well as with planners before the formal application is made (as proposed on pages 35-36 but apparently only for Major Developments departing from the approved development plan). We suggest that 3 months would be more realistic than 8 weeks. We are also not sure if the present '8 week rule' will still apply where applicants can submit an application and if they get no response within 8weeks can resubmit an identical (or almost identical) application and at the same time can appeal and get, a Public Enquiry because of failure to determine the first application?
Craiglockhart Community Council: In relation to Major Developments the introduction of timescale agreements does require the applicant to supply all necessary information before the application is registered if a realistic timescale is to be put in place. This is an example of a place where significant changes in attitude will be needed.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: The seem like a good idea in principle but in practice there may be many potential pitfalls, not least the chronic under-funding and understaffing of our planning departments. In the first place, particularly complex and contentious proposals could often take several months, if not years to process, and the provisions make it too easy for developers to deliberately frustrate any potential agreement in order to allow an appeal to Ministers after the statutory two month period. Where a processing agreement is in place but the terms are not met and the planning authority is found to have acted unreasonably, fees should be returned on a sliding and progressive scale depending on the time taken rather than an automatic full refund.
Voluntary Organisations
Colinton Amenity Association: We consider that community representative bodies should also be included in the discussions about processing agreements. They will have views about issues affecting the development of a site that could impinge upon the interests of a community.
Scottish Renewables Forum: Whilst we have little difficulty with the principle of Processing Agreements we would caution that Processing Agreements may not be conducive to good planning if the focus is on delivering decisions by a certain deadline. Rushing decisions is likely to lead to bad decisions. We also note that while the proper resourcing of competent authorities is key to expeditious processing, the performance of statutory consultees in this process will require attention and most likely investment. Will statutory consultees be bound to the agreed timetables. We would question whether a number of them could or would respond within the 28-day negotiation period. Internal departments of a Council can also be unreasonable not just with the speed of their response but with the terms of it. We would ask that consideration is given to making Councils as a whole responsible for efficiency Is it intended to set targets for negotiating processing agreements within the 28-day period as well as for the numbers of agreements actually met? This would allow the situation to be monitored.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: The contract between developers and local authorities should consider and agree issues concerning the collection and dissemination of up to date environmental information. There should be consideration of whether environmental impact assessment regulations capture all these types of development. Even in cases where an EIA is not a statutory requirement this should be done as best practice and agreed as part of the contract
Private Individuals
Lauder, Alistair J: The proposals re the processing of applications by the planning authority seem to me to lack sufficient incentives to make them meaningful. For example if there is no processing agreement and a decision is not made within 2/4 months the applicant only gets a refund of 50% of the application fee if the application is taken to appeal and the appeal is successful. Contrast this with the failure to issue a decision where an agreement exists, here the full fee is refunded if the planning authority acted unreasonably, i.e. the appeal does not need to be successful. Given that the Paper states that planning application fees are to be increased to more closely reflect the actual costs of processing an application, I wonder whether it might be a fairer situation in all applications that the full planning application fee is refunded to the applicant where the failure by the planning authority to issue a decision timeously is unreasonable. The existing legislation sets the time periods of 2/4 months. If that is unrealistic perhaps the time limits in the legislation should be amended to give clarity. An associated matter to progressing applications may be a clearer position on the awarding of expenses against planning authorities in successful planning appeals. It can seem that no matter how incorrect the original decision of the planning authority may appear to be Reporters rarely award expenses against the planning authority.
Lee, David: The White Paper proposes a 'processing agreement' may be used in the case of 'Major' applications. A similar mechanism should be implemented for all applications, which gives control to the planning authority to determine a timetable for every application, based on its scale and complexity. The timetable and status of application must also be made publicly available. A suggested system would be: i) Processing will not commence until applicant has presented sufficient material for pre-application discussion. ii) Planning authority evaluates this material and publish initial timetable for processing of application. iii) Application proceeds towards determination, with the timetable being revised as necessary to reflect any changes to the scope of the application.
This should allow planning authorities to give proper consideration to applications, rather than being forced to make (potentially wrong) decisions due to the threat of legal action from an applicant if their application is not processed within a certain time.
« Previous | Contents | Next »