« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5.1.4: Local Developments
Local Authorities
Aberdeen City Council: It will be absolutely essential that schemes of delegation to be extremely clear in their extent to avoid disputes from applicants, objectors or indeed Members about whether an application should be dealt with under delegated powers. This is particularly important in view of the revised appeal process.
Argyll & Bute Council: There are real concerns that this proposal will actually delay the processing of local development applications rather than increasing the level of performance. Most if not all delegated refusals are likely to be subject to local review/appeal thus slowing down performance by installing an additional determination procedure into the planning applications determination process. It would require significant changes to the scheme of delegation and training for Members to deal with and write up appeal decisions at the local level. This could also have significant implications for other Departments, as planning staff could not sit on the local appeal/review panel in terms of making a decision as it would be their report which was being reviewed. There could also be significant costs in setting up and running this review/appeal panel at a local level. There also requires to be a clear definition of the meaning of "statutory appeal" as this could allow the refusal of a local application significantly greater rights of appeal than "National" or "Major" development if this means that a local review/appeal body's decision could also be appealed to the Scottish Executive.
Glasgow City Council: There is concern over the possible implications of this proposal in the absence of further information. There has been no definition yet as to what is meant by 'significant' and 'controversial' development -further clarification is required from the Executive. The format of the Glasgow City Plan may not lend itself easily to the type of approach proposed. The Development Policy Principles used in the Plan provide for flexibility in the interpretation of what may and may not be acceptable within the areas covered by them.
Inverclyde Council: This has the potential to significantly streamline the decision making process, providing quicker decisions, and would be likely to ensure that in excess of 95% of householder applications are determined within 2 months. This relies on a wider scheme of delegation being agreed by elected members. There is also the possibility that similar types of development which come into the appeals process could be handled in different ways across authorities i.e. in some cases by the local authority and in others by SEIRU.
Moray Council: Greater delegation to officers is regarded as an appropriate way to expedite the efficient processing of applications, leaving members to concentrate on more controversial or strategic issues. Whilst this provision is welcome there is a conflict in the White Paper between leaving an authority to decide the details of any delegation scheme and then expressly excluding certain proposals. Will SM have a right to amend a delegation scheme if it were not considered extensive? As part of the proposed guidance SM should determine what constitutes a 'departure' (and leave consideration of the significance to be debated by members) and also who decides what constitutes a departure i.e. planning officials or members.
Scottish Borders Council: There is concern that this arrangement may create a more adversarial working relationship between officers and elected members.
Shetland Islands Council's (interim response): It will be essential to clarify terms in relation to the handling of 'local developments'. The definition of what is meant by such terms as 'controversial', 'complex' or 'significant or substantial' is obviously important and whilst we welcome the scope for some terms to be locally defined, we also think that some guidance would be welcome in order to ensure a degree of consistency and also to ensure that the benefits of the proposed approach are fed through to decision-making.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Defence Estates: Defence Estates support the intention to introduce a clear process for the assessment of planning applications based upon the type and scale of development under consideration in order to focus the attention of planning authorities on the more controversial or complex planning applications.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: The increased emphasis on the Development Plan and the requirement for that plan to be up to date and subject to both SEA and mandatory examination will greatly assist the decision making on local developments.
Scottish Water: We support the principle proposed to handle small scale development, provided that there is sufficient clarity for applicants to understand their role in the provision of Scottish Water assets and the interrelationship between aggregated small developments. In the current climate of development constraint, and until that is redressed as intended by Ministers, compliance with land use allocation does not guarantee a water and/or sewerage service connection. Cleary an understanding of available capacity will help planning authorities at the outset, but invariably applicants will be required to carry out drainage impact assessments in order for them, and us, to understand the work and cost to mitigate our risk of asset operation and/or environmental compliance. Only once these risks are effectively addressed in accordance with the prevalent funding arrangements will a water and sewerage service connection be allowed. As an applicant that currently sees a large number of planning applications determined under delegated powers we note with concern the specific preclusion of minor works at wastewater treatment works from eligibility for delegation. There appears to be however a clear undercurrent surrounding the 'bad neighbour' issue that is not sufficiently addressed in the level of detail within the white paper consultation. This issue carries significant weight for Scottish Water and we would require far more clarity in the relationship within the hierarchy proposed.
Development Industry
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: Local Developments, covering everything which is not a major development, which are subject to delegated powers are supported, however, we see no reason to link this to a limited appeal procedure.
Other Businesses
Association of Electricity Producers: It is inequitable to deny such projects the right of appeal or for decisions regarding such applications to be made by less suitably qualified personnel than for larger projects.
Scottish Power: Given the examples offered within the Paper, it is our opinion that 'local' projects do not correctly reflect the projects described. For example, 5.1.4 includes sizable projects such as sewage works, crematoria and projects subject to EIA.
Tarmac Ltd: New quarries are relatively few and far between, not least because of the wide planning presumption in favour of extension to existing operations. Many more applications for extensions than new developments will continue to be made and I would envisage these typically falling within the Local developments to be heard by elected members. Consequently there would be little change or improvement to the basic system in this regard but the proposals for enhanced scrutiny would apply.
Professional Organisations
RIAS: We note the intention to have most applications determined by officials with elective members being used as an appeal system. We would make the observation that this will require a significant culture shift for officials who have been used to passing difficult issues (and many planning issues are difficult) up the chain of command. In general terms we support the use of officials in this way but we urge caution in the terms of how appeals are handled by elected members. There is much unease by architects over the political and other motivations of elected members in this role. Might it not be better to introduce independent assessors and mediators to sit in these instances?
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Hargest & Wallace Planning: The principle of increasing officer delegation and reducing demands on SEIRU is supported. However the use of independent reviews and then the potential for further appeal runs counter to the principle of improving efficiency. Allowing a right of appeal to SEIRU is essential - reliance only on a review panel would counter principles embodied in ECHR and it would be naïve to assume that members of the review panel are truly independent - members regularly meet officers and/or objectors/supporters (formally and informally) and can easily seek to influence officer's or the review panel's decisions. Given the close integration of officials and councillors it will be impossible to maintain a separation and independence of thought and approach at the review stage.
Maclay, Murray & Spens: We welcome the proposal that individual Planning Officers will take more decisions. Hopefully, this will allow the majority of local "uncontroversial" applications to be determined at grass roots level, removing the politicisation which often occurs at Committee level. However, we are concerned about the proposal to allow appeals to a new review body made up of local members. This raises issues of the involvement of the members in any previous planning decisions which might in some way prejudice their ability to subsequently sit on review panels. This process may well be open to the argument that the review body includes the same personnel who have approved the policies, supplemental guidance and other matters. Therefore, at this level, there will be no independent review of the conduct of the Planning Authority, other than through the Courts - a route which would be costly and time consuming. It is also our experience that a locally elected review body is likely to be a "political animal". For example, in Hearing situations, the planning issues often become subsumed within local, political ones and we do not see how the proposed review body would be any different. We would submit that a locally elected review body is less likely to be perceived as impartial and independent - something which is essential from a public perception point of view, especially at this level of development.
Warren Consultants: The way that the White Paper distinguishes between Local Developments and Major Developments means that there are a very large number of applications which "fall between two stools". The White Paper (Page 22) says that the Local Development category refers to "small scale changes to commercial or industrial buildings and work by householders to alter their properties". There is no reference here to the huge number of applications for, for example, small or single housing schemes, shops, takeaways, restaurants, industry etc. Is it the intention that all of these fall within Local Development Category A and all that Local Development Category B will amount to are for example small extensions to houses or commercial or industrial properties? The White Paper is not clear. Our recommendation is that the only development that will be in Local Development Category B will be small extensions to houses and commercial and industrial properties because all proposals which are larger scale than these can easily have policy and political implications.
Academic Bodies and Individuals
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: In general, local developments are approved by planners but many have conditions imposed in order to prevent them having a significant impact on their surroundings. Therefore, we would challenge the assertion that such developments have no impact. The delegated powers of decision-making already exist and it is unclear why further schemes need to be introduced
Community Councils
Ardross Community Council: This paper seems to ignore the cumulative impact of local planning decisions, the cumulative impact could have wider implications that just a local area.
Currie Community Council: We note that "Local Developments" will be decided as at present through planning committees of locally elected councillors. We see that small-scale changes (who decides what is "small-scale"?) are to be subject to delegation to planning officers and that publicity and the ability of local people to make their views known will still apply.
Greengairs Community Council and Greengairs Environmental Forum: This is where the majority of problems will occur, local Elected Members do not necessarily have the confidence of the public or equal interest and sense of responsibility for the individual communities that make up the Local Authority area. Devolving more planning decisions to the local level would do more to undermine confidence in the system in our area than almost anything else. Considerable changes would be required that have not even been mentioned in the White Paper to ensure public involvement at this stage was "fair". Previous Scottish Executive publications and initiatives to enhance public participation like "Your Place, Your Plan" have only resulted in raising public expectation but have failed to deliver what they imply, this only fuels public frustration and increases the voice for change.
Newburgh Community Council: Decisions on planning should be taken locally. Developers and owners of land see large profits can be made from development with no regard to the potential damage to the well-being and infrastructure of rural communities. If the provisions of the White Paper were applied to Fife we are sure that the local planning department, despite its flaws, would be more than capable of looking after local people.
Voluntary Organisations
Brethren Gospel Trusts: We support provision of a statutory basis for schemes of delegation within planning authorities. We have reservations regarding the proposed revised arrangements for local handling of appeals which we consider should continue to be independent and consistent as is currently the case.
Colinton Amenity Association: We understand the desire to reduce planning authority inputs into small scale developments. But there will still be a need to consider and deal with key issues of concerns to residents such as privacy, overshadowing, design of structures and traffic generation. We hope that these issues are not overlooked in the new system.
Highland Perthshire Communities Partnership: We view the apparent disappearance of the Reporter's Unit with some apprehension. It is one aspect of the present planning system that has an immense importance to the planning system in Scotland.
Quarry Traffic Monitoring Group: This causes us great concern. We have already expressed the view that the current system of 'hearings' is fundamentally flawed. The White Paper offers no substantive change.
Private Individuals
Macadam, Ian: It is great that home improvements would be approved locally in each town. I hope to see a solar water panel, photovoltaic cell panel and a mini wind turbine on the roof of every home and there should be no need for expensive planning applications for these.
Politicians and Political Groups
Kennedy, Margaret Councillor: I would hope that there will be consultation with Chairs of Planning Committees and/or local elected members over the definition of applications considered not controversial or complex.
« Previous | Contents | Next »