« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Mandatory Schemes of Delegation
Local Authorities
City of Edinburgh Council: This is compatible with the approach taken by Council in its reform of procedures to improve efficiency. Currently, 80% of applications are delegated for officer decisions and there are strict procedures in place to ensure probity in decision-making.
Dumfries & Galloway Council: We wish to express strong concerns regarding the proposed reduction of Elected Member involvement in development control which would lead to the marginalisation of councillors in the democratic decision making process.
Dundee City Council: The Council already operates a Scheme of Delegation. However the implications of the content of the White Paper are that the Scheme will require to be reviewed to ensure the most effective and efficient discharge of decision making for this category of application. However to assist in this process it would be helpful if the SE were to prescribe the definition of terms which would allow Councils to take a uniformly consistent approach to drafting their Schemes of Delegation.
East Renfrewshire Council: Strongly supported in principle. The requirement for delegation schemes represents progress, although it merely reflects what some Councils, East Renfrewshire in particular, has been practicing for some time. However, a minimum scheme of delegation should be introduced, allowing discretion as to the extent of delegation to officers.
Falkirk Council: Currently Falkirk Council has a very effective scheme of delegation which enables over 90% of applications to be dealt with by officers, including refusals. Under the Council's scheme consultation is also permitted with both local members and the Convener ensuring member confidence in the system and support for officers. Recent experience in this Council has demonstrated that the cumulative effect of apparently minor developments can be of concern to local communities and members meriting consideration at Committee while major developments clearly not in accordance with the Development Plan and with a significant body of objections have been refused under the officers delegated powers without recourse to Committee. It would be extremely regrettable if the Planning Bill or any supporting guidance on such scheme was overly prescriptive and inflexible as is implied could be the case in the White Paper.
Glasgow City Council: Further guidance is required from the SE on what they mean by 'significant' and 'substantial' in relation to the types of development and number of objections. The scheme of delegation operating in Glasgow is that if there is more than one objection, the application needs to be considered by the Committee. Other local authorities operate using different parameters, e.g. applications go to Committee if there are five or more objections. This proposal will have to be considered alongside the other changes envisaged by the SE, e.g. processing major applications through agreements with developers, introduction of Local Review Boards, etc. When the full details of the SE's proposals become known, there may be a requirement to modify Glasgow's development management arrangements, in which event, consideration can be given to whether or not to extend the range of applications delegated to officers.
Midlothian Council: As proposed, there will be different schemes of delegation for each of the 32 Councils. This could lead to confusion among the public and development industry and to inconsistencies. For example, one authority may choose to delegate to officers the determination of major housing applications, while an adjacent authority may limit delegation to minor housing applications. What this would mean is that any appeal in the first authority would go to the local review body, while an appeal in the second would go to SEIRU. At the very least, guidance should be produced by the Executive in order to reduce such disparities between schemes of delegation.
Moray Council: Whilst further guidance is awaited, Moray already has an extensive delegation scheme allowing both approval and refusal. It is not clear whether the impact of this requirement will mean a completely new delegation scheme has to be introduced or whether the existing scheme can be modified to accommodate EIA and larger-scale bad neighbour development (which usually end up before members anyway) and any required revision of our 'delegation in consultation' arrangements.
Perth & Kinross Council: This formalises the practice of applications being determined by officers, leaving each planning authority to determine the nature and extent of delegation to officials. Local appeals may create an unnecessary "division" between officials and members. There are implications for members of an increased involvement in deciding appeals and for officers in preparing submissions to local appeal review body.
Renfrewshire Council: Major and minor developments will require to be defined and the level and nature of delegation to officers should be the subject of guidance to achieve a general consistency among authorities. In this respect the new delegation system recently adopted by Renfrewshire Council has been introduced to achieve the same objectives as the White Paper and may well be an appropriate level to be adopted generally.
Scottish Borders Council: Although this does not differ from existing arrangements, it is clearly the intention of the White Paper that a higher proportion of applications should be determined at officer level. The level of delegation will be critical in determining appeal arrangements. High levels of delegation will result in a greater role for the local review body. This is to be welcomed in that it will increase local accountability and reduce the involvement of the Scottish Executive in local issues. Whilst supporting the principle of devolving power to local authorities, differing levels of delegation between authorities will result in different appeal arrangements for applications of the same nature or description. It is not considered that this would help simplify or instill public confidence in the planning system.
South Ayrshire Council: Although delegation schemes will be agreed at local authority level, it is proposed that officers may be able to refuse applications unless there is a significant body of objection (such applications would be referred to elected members for determination). A definition of 'significant' in this context would be a useful aid to Councils in setting in place a scheme of delegation. Such a scheme will relieve the workload of the Planning Committee by reducing the number of applications to be determined by members, however presumably the Scottish Executive has satisfied itself that there is no conflict between this proposal and legislation on human rights, in particular the right to a fair hearing.
South Lanarkshire Council: This Council has recently increased the use of delegated powers to determine a wider range of applications and as such is moving towards the requirements set out in the Planning Bill.
Other LA Organisations
COSLA: Aware of a degree of sensitivity among planning conveners as to how schemes of delegation would work, in terms of a changing relationship between elected members and officers in the management of planning applications. We accept that a number of planning authorities have already introduced schemes of delegation to improve the processing of non - controversial planning applications. However, what may work for one authority may not work for all and the Executive should take account of this in the level and method of requirement it proposes to place upon planning authorities to undertake this change in the planning decision-making process.
Development Industry
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): In respect of local developments, we 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. We also recognise that delegation to officers already operates successfully in most Councils.
Grosvenor Investments: This seems a sensible proposal. However, it very much relies on proper implementation and training of planning officers.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): The proposed introduction of a new and enlarged scheme of delegation to allow officers to deal with smaller scale schemes that accord with the development plan is a welcome proposition that should hopefully speed up the decision making process for the vast majority of planning applications.
Persimmon Homes: Greater levels of officer delegation are welcomed in potentially speeding up more straightforward applications.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: Whilst the principle of more delegation is one which we would agree with, it will do little to ease the workload of planning officers. Undoubtedly, it will be the same officers responsible for delegated applications as those responsible for Major Developments. Increasing delegated powers will do little to improve the performance of major applications.'
WBB Minerals: National guidelines and criteria for scheme of delegation would assist significantly.
Other Businesses
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: With regard to local developments, 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.
Arqiva: The proposals for planning authorities to introduce a delegation scheme allowing officers to determine a wider range of applications is supported. It is considered that this should free up time and enable some small uncontroversial developments to be approved in a timely fashion.
Crown Castle UKLTD: We support the increased use of delegated authority to planning officials. We suggest one step further by issuing guidance to LPA's to allow for a consistent approach to delegated authority rather than leave the extent of delegation to the discretion of an individual local planning authority. It is our experience that due to political pressure some authorities remove electronic communications developments from delegated decision, irrespective of recommendation or level of community representation and thereby such proposals are placed at a disadvantage in terms speed of decision. We note that the White Paper suggests that certain forms of Local Development will not be eligible for delegated decision. Specifically it refers to developments defined as 'bad neighbour' within the General Development Procedure Order 1992 (' GDPO'). We consider that this approach is potentially flawed. Many forms of development can be argued as potentially those which "alter the character of an area of established amenity" which "introduce significant change in a homogeneous area." In our experience, where there is a political sensitivity towards a type of development such as telecommunications, some LPA's have taken or inferred the easy option to advertise this form of development as bad neighbour. Should this approach be adopted, we again encourage clear guidance on this matter to steer LPA's.
First UK Bus Division: The proposal to allow local authority offices delegated powers to grant applications with conditions or to refuse applications should streamline the local planning process and make it more efficient.
RWE Npower plc: In many cases electricity generation developments receive planning permissions (whether through the normal planning process or the Electricity Act consent process as deemed permissions) with conditions requiring subsequent approvals of details from the local planning authority. No changes should be made which would inhibit such approvals being given by officers under delegated powers. We do not see why uncontroversial EIA developments which are in the "local" category should not be determined by officers under delegated powers, as sometimes happens at present, especially if statutory environmental consultees ( SNH, SEPA etc.) have no unresolved objection.
Scottish Rural Property & Business Association: If development plans are up to date and involved community consultation in their creation, then applications for local developments, which accord with the development plan, should be granted using delegated powers even if there are objections or strong local opinion. As proposed each local authority would have discretion in devising its delegation scheme, as to whether officers could deal with applications to which there have been objections. We believe however that there should be a uniform approach to delegated decisions.
Tarmac Ltd: Note that proposals for delegated approval will not include any mineral related development since this is listed as bad neighbours under the General Development Procedure Order 1992. At present a number of minor decisions are undertaken by delegated authority including minor extensions. If the general thrust of these proposals includes efficiency as stated then it may not be appropriate to rule out use of this facility on wholesale basis.
Tesco Stores Ltd: We support the proposal to require planning authorities to introduce schemes of delegation that allow officers to take decisions quickly for applications that accord with adopted development plans. We also support the proposal to widen delegation schemes to allow officers to determine a wider range of applications.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): In respect of local developments, we 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. We also recognise that delegation to officers already operates successfully in most Councils.
Professional Organisations
RICS Scotland:RICS Scotland supports the proposal to make greater use of delegated powers to speed up the planning process at local level. We believe it is very important that this is supported through encouraging cultural change and a process of development management, which seeks to promote sustainable and high quality new development.
RTPI Scotland: We are aware that there is a wide range of practice at the present time and that many authorities do not delegate refusals, nor even objected applications, to their officials. If delegation schemes are to remain at the discretion of local authorities, a significant diversion of cases from the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reports Unit to local appeal panels will only be feasible if delegation schemes are generally more extensive. We believe that this cannot be achieved solely on the back of guidance and that some form of compact with local government, through COSLA, will be necessary. In addition, we feel that this requires careful consideration of the status of the designated officer in each authority. We would oppose delegation to an officer who was not professionally qualified. We also note that there are difficulties with arrangements for delegation within the National Parks. We would point out that the Institute, on several occasions during the passage of the National Parks Bill and the Designation Orders, recommended that the full range of powers for delegation the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 should be available to National Parks, but this was ignored. The opportunity should be taken now to amend the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 to this effect.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Drivers Jonas: In respect of local developments, we 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. We also recognise that delegation to officers already operates successfully in most Councils.
Turley Associates: The increased delegation of decisions to officials is supported
Warren Consultants: In terms of effective delegation, we would commend the practice of Stirling Council. Under the Stirling system, recommendation reports by the Director of Planning are publicised in just the same way that reports to the planning committee are in the public domain before the committee considers them. Members are given a week to decide whether they want an application to be considered by the planning committee having read the officer's report which is comprehensive in the normal way, for example, recommends how local objections should be responded to. If all the Members are happy with the recommendation, the decision automatically follows the Director of Planning's recommendation and does not go to the planning committee. If, however, just one councillor is not happy with the report, then the application is considered by the planning committee. I believe this system works well and it would avoid the need for a scheme of delegation by which criteria have to be applied. Even in the Stirling system, the officers will sometimes take the view that an application is sufficiently controversial that it ought to go to the planning committee anyway.
Academic Bodies and Individuals
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: The present arrangements allow for a planning officer to make decisions under delegated powers if there is no significant member, or public, opposition to a case. It is unclear why such developments impose a huge burden on planners. However, such cases need a professional eye in order to appreciate the planning implications of what might at first seem a relatively trivial proposal. It is often these small changes, accumulation of which can make a significant impact on local character and we would strongly resist the idea that these are delegated to other bodies without planning training.
Community Councils
Broughty Ferry Community Council: Applications attracting objections (particularly from statutory consultees) should be required to be dealt with by Committee
Gatehouse of Fleet Community Council: Delegation to officers for straightforward schemes is practiced in our area and is a way of dealing with simple applications. Our town centre is a conservation area and the regional council employs a conservation officer. It has come to our attention that a development recently completed in the conservation area was cleared by the councils planning officer without reference to the Conservation officer. This course of action is a worry to the community council as future decisions taken in a similar manner may lead to the degradation of the conservation area. Will you take our concerns into consideration and write into the new Bill a requirement that the conservation officer MUST be consulted on proposed developments in a conservation area.
Hillhead Community Council: We have several concerns about delegated decisions. These are decisions by officers take place behind closed doors. Scrutiny should be inbuilt. Decisions should be open and accountable. Reasons for decisions should be freely available and open to scrutiny. The present system is a quasi-judicial process conducted in public. This should continue. The right of objectors to be heard should be continued and strengthened.
Kennoway Community Council: We do not support the proposal of quick processing of local development by planning officers, although consistent with the development plan, as these could be passed by planners before becoming local knowledge. In this scenario, what happens to the views of the local people?
Kinghorn Community Council: There is a danger of allowing Officers to make local decisions in this manner, as these rarely include an in depth perception or perception of the 'local view' Planning officials have an apparent view that they are the experts in all matters this is not so. Equally at what level is an application considered to be controversial. There needs to be a check on the performance and process of 'officers' making decisions without consultation at some level.
Kiltarlity Community Council: Where local authorities are to draw up schemes of delegation and other 'ground rules', it is vital that there is full transparency and publicity, consultation before these are finalised.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: Undoubtedly one of the most questionable aspects of the bill is the proposal to designate the vast majority of developments as 'Local Developments' and delegate decision making, where the proposals do not depart from the development plan, to unelected officials. This proposal, quite apart from being a potential charter for corruption represents a potentially disastrous, anti-democratic and ill-thought out policy which could have disastrous consequences for the amenity and safety of local communities. The system may also be open to abuse by developers who will seek to progress a major housing development, for example, as a series of minor applications, thereby escaping enhanced scrutiny. According to the white paper it appears that each local authority is to decide on its own scheme without any central statutory guidance. This we find wholly unacceptable.
Liberton Community Council: We are a relatively young Community Council, but have been taking an active interest in planning and have attended meetings of the Council's Development Quality Sub-Committee from time to time, listening not just to applications of direct interest to us but to the full business. This has taught us that the recommendations from the officials are sometimes (fortunately not often) not as well based as they should be. Questions from the elected members have elicited problems with apparently innocent applications (not identified in the papers as 'for presentation), particularly the lack of contextual information. We commend the Edinburgh Committee for its watchfulness in this and in making site visits. We are therefore very suspicious of the category of 'Minor Applications' which is to escape the scrutiny of elected members. It should be very carefully circumscribed.
Merchiston Community Council: With reference to the proposal that applications subject to significant or substantial bodies of objection should be referred to elected members for determination the Community Council questions whether objectors will be heard and suggests that there should be a right of appeal heard by an independent assessor.
The Royal Burgh of Cupar & District Community Council: Extensive delegation arrangements are likely to be forced on councils as such arrangements are standardised across. In Fife the planning service is already chronically slimmed down and it is difficult to see how additional delegation could work reliably and efficiently.
Voluntary Organisations
Brethren Gospel Trusts: We concur with the view that in general delegated decision making appears to work satisfactorily.
Broughton & Pilrig Community Council: We do not object to the delegation of powers in the interest of efficiency but this should not occur at the expense of accountability, whether that burden falls on planning officials or the developer. Clear benchmarks need to be set to guide the application of delegated powers. Failure to ensure transparency in this area, including in respect of alterations and amendments, is one of the greatest causes of cynicism and loss of faith felt by the public, in relation to planning issues.
Colinton Amenity Association: The exemptions to delegation of determination should include those cases that are subject to substantial numbers of objections.
Hamilton Natural History Society: There is a danger of Planning Officers being given too much delegated authority, which would allow one person to make decisions. Authorities should have defined to them what constitutes "significant or substantial bodies of objection" in order that a proposal can then be referred to a Planning Committee for determination.
Pollokshields Heritage: We suggest the definition of
'controversial' needs further clarification and should at least include proposals in a Conservation Area that have received a material planning objection, from a local community group. One category for 'controversial' is 'development significantly contrary to the development plan' [p.24]: in our experience, there is often a very fine judgement to be made as to whether development is or
is not contrary to the development plan. We note the proposal to extend delegation agreements. We are not
convinced this will save the amount of time suggested since, prior to every delegated decision, officers will still need to analyse proposals, carry out statutory consultations, consider any representations and write an analysis just as they do in their report to committee. This is a quasi judicial process and we are concerned about officials taking decisions behind closed doors. Corruption is fortunately rare in local government. But such a procedure gives rise to openings for it. Even worse it gives grounds for the perception of corruption, wholly destructive of local government. Furthermore we believe that these local delegated decisions contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and is therefore ultra vires under the Scottish Act.
Rural Scotland: Rural Scotland would be very cautious about the prospect of there being a variety of practice applied across Scotland. If it is desirable to standardise Planning Application Forms across the country we would suggest that it is even more important to have national consistency for Schemes of Delegation, which operate under very clear, Executive produced guidelines.
Scottish Renewables Forum: We accept that substantial or significant objections will depend on the varying circumstances of each area and each planning authority should be involved in establishing the criteria appropriate for its own area. We would encourage a process by which these policies are justified and agreed with the Ministers before their adoption. We do not understand the automatic exemption from eligibility for delegation for development that requires Environmental Impact Assessment. If the EIA is required for say a possible impact on ornithology and the officers, SNH and RSPB are content, we would question whether the elected members need to take the decision.
St Andrews Preservation Trust: While recognizing that many applications could be delegated we do have some concerns. We would need assurances that all delegated applications appear as at present in the 'weekly list'. In a Conservation Area there are times when even a small application can have an impact on the character of the whole area.
The Grange Association: Delegation of decisions to Planning Officers already occurs in our area and we sometime feel that there is a lack of transparency in the decisions. The White Paper states that explanations should be given for decisions; we hope that these will be clearer than has sometimes been the case. It also states that planning authorities will decide what the delegated powers will be; we would like to know what such powers will be. Decisions will be made by elected members when there is a "significant or substantial body of objection" to an application. Who decides what is 'significant or substantial'?
Scottish Council for Single Homeless ( SCSH):SCSH also has some concerns about the increasing delegation of power to individual officials, which might lead to underhand practices and collusion with developers developing To safeguard against corrupt practices developing a robust audit and recording system must be in place.
Private Individuals
Anonymous: Councillors and the staff of local councils must declare publicly in a register any connection whatsoever to applicants or beneficiaries in a scheme or project. Delegation should be only to professionally and academically qualified persons.
Drummond, Gordon B Dr: If decisions are delegated to planning officers (and national developments are reserved to Ministers) independent examination by a public inquiry will be removed completely.
McDougall, Duncan: I welcome the proposals to allow certain minor planning applications to be dealt with directly, thereby releasing senior planning personnel to concentrate on more significant cases.
Oliver, Jean: I believe the proposed new delegation scheme to be a retrograde step -who decides what is significant or substantial objection? If ANY VALID objection is on the table, the application should be referred to elected members. VALID can be specified.
Smith, RL: While it is tempting to believe that planning officials should be allowed to make decisions, if this is to be allowed then the standard of education/qualification of planners must be reviewed. Planners should have a first degree in Architecture, Engineering or Surveying, before qualifying as a planner.
« Previous | Contents | Next »