« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Reduction in Time Period for Appeals
Local Authorities
Dundee City Council: Although the Council supports this proposal, it recognises that this change may result in an increase in the number of "precautionary" appeals lodged pending the negotiation of alternative proposals locally.
Fife Council: This is strongly supported and will bring greater certainty to communities. Three months is probably the absolute minimum time within which an applicant/agent can fully consider (1) the Council's decision (2) the implications of making a planning appeal; and (3) prepare a case if he/she decides to appeal.
Glasgow City Council: A similar proposal was introduced in England and had to be withdrawn as a result of the massive upswing in submitted appeals. Despite earlier support, there is some concern over the workability of this proposal. Further clarification is, therefore, required.
Inverclyde Council: This, apparently, is because of concerns of uncertainty for objectors and planning authorities. While supported it will have no impact on the service provided by Local Authorities.
Moray Council: This can be supported in principle, in so far as it reduces the period of uncertainty about whether an appeal will be lodged. However this proposal has not learned from the experience in England where a similar 3 month period was introduced and later restored to 6 months after an increase in appeals caused a log jam as applicants sought to safeguard their position. A shorter period available to respond will impact on local authority procedures and resources.
North Lanarkshire Council: Reduced time period for appeals - noted that this could lead to more appeals in the short term, but, on balance, is welcome.
Scottish Borders Council: In principle this is supported. However in reducing the period available to achieve an alternative acceptable solution, this may lead to an increase in the number of appeals submitted.
South Lanarkshire Council: Recent experience in England and Wales, where the reduction in the time period for an appeal has already been reduced to 3 months, has resulted in a significant number of appeals being submitted to the extent that the caseload has become unmanageable. Further, it is understood that consideration is being given to reverting back to the 6 month period. It is therefore recommended the Scottish Executive should reconsider this proposal in light of experience in England and Wales.
West Lothian Council: This proposal is broadly supported. However, the experience of reducing the appeal period in England and Wales resulted in the submission of many more appeals that, in effect, slowed the system down rather than speeding it up. This issue should be further researched, and reflected upon, to ensure that the same situation does not occur in Scotland.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian: This will help to speed up the time taken to determine applications, particularly when issues arise.
Scottish Water: We are concerned that this will lead to an increase in the number of appeals submitted as it will reduce the opportunity for organisations such as Scottish Water to thoroughly explore the implications of alternatives to appeal and to properly engage planning authorities in this process, in line with current government advice. We understand that when this change was implemented in England and Wales the number of appeals lodged did increase significantly and, as a result, a return to a 6-month period has been initiated. In this respect, we would suggest that greater efficiency and transparency in the system would arise where planning authorities reach planning decisions in a more consistent manner and with a full record of the relevant factors and reasons for decisions much more explicitly stated than at present.
The Development Industry
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): A similar proposal was introduced in England but had to be withdrawn after a significant increase in the number of appeals. We consider that the period of three months may not allow sufficient time to consider the merits of whether to lodge an appeal and we therefore object to this proposal.
Grosvenor Investments: We cannot see any benefit in reducing the time to appeal. Whilst six months may be a long time when dealing with a house extension, it is not long for large developments but gives enough time for these developers to take stock.
Homes for Scotland: The reduction in the period from 6 months to 3 months to register appeals is noted but Homes for Scotland's view is that it will increase the number of appeals due to limited time required to consider the implications of a planning authority's decision. In many instances it takes over a month to receive the formal decision notice from the Council which is backdated to the date of the Committee meeting. In some cases it can be even longer resulting in the possibility that developers could be time barred should the 3 month period be adopted. We would also anticipate that such a change could have implications for SEIRU in terms of workload in the light of the experience of the Planning Inspectorate in England. We understand that the Planning Inspectorate in England was swamped with planning appeals when a similar measure was introduced and has now reverted back to the 6 month period. We are of the opinion that the 6 month period should be retained.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): The Scottish Executive should take note of the recent experience in England where a similar scheme was reversed once it became apparent that the volume of appeals increased significantly and the Planning Inspectorate was unable to cope with increased demand. The backlog of unresolved cases prompted the reinstatement of the 6 month period which, it was felt, encourages developers to enter into positive negotiations to resolve disputes and to produce positive planning outcomes, rather than lodging quick appeals within the 3 month time period. The Scottish Executive should take proper cognisance of this recent experience and drop any proposals to shorten the appeal time limit from the current package of reforms.
Persimmon Homes: This proposal is not supported. The timescale is inadequate for applicants to consider their position and explore alternatives to appeal. This may result in the number of Appeals increasing as applicants will have little or no choice but to appeal.
Stewart Milne Holdings: We would not support the reduction in timescale for registering an appeal from six months to three months given the experience of the planning inspectorate in England. As a consequence, we are of the opinion that the six months period should be retained.
Stewart Milne Homes: We do not accept the reduction in timescale for appealing a planning decision. Three months is not sufficient to determine a strategy and work with the council on an alternative application, where necessary. Reducing the timescale would require more applications to be lodged and would also result in more appeals being lodged. When timescales were reduced in England the Inspectors unit were overrun with appeals and has since reverted to the 6 month timescale.
The Buchanan Partnership: Not convinced that reducing the period for appeal will have a net overall benefit to the drive toward efficiency so clearly promoted in the White Paper.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: We believe that reducing the period for lodging appeals from 6 to 3 months, will produce little in the way of benefit to anyone and that it will only result in more appeals being lodged (we understand this to be the case elsewhere).
Other Businesses
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: We fully endorse the objective of the Scottish Executive to make the appeal system more accessible and quicker, we believe that it must properly balance public interest considerations with the need to maintain the integrity of, and confidence in, the planning system. It is essential that the appeal forum allows a full and properly balanced discussion of the relevant issues, thereby encouraging economic development which is essential to Scotland's future.
Arqiva: The proposal to reduce the time period for appeals from 6 months to 3 is not supported. In England this has proved to be a mistake from the point of view of substantially increasing appeals submitted. This has increased the time taken for example to consider an appeal by written representations from 6 months to in some cases over a year. It was not successful and the period has reverted back to 6 months. Given the way Networks are rolled out such a reduction would prejudice the ability of the telecommunications industry to consider the implications of a refusal of a site and its impact beyond the immediate locality to the overall network. As reflected above it is considered that more appeals may be made as a means of protecting the applicant's position, which would defeat the principal objectives.
ASDA: This proposal may simply lead to more appeals being lodged as it leaves less time to negotiate an alternative. If the number of appeals increases, this will slow down the process of determining these. It would be prudent for the Scottish Executive to review the experience in England since the time period was reduced to three months there.
Association of Electricity Producers: The Association is concerned that the reduction in time for appeals to be lodged from six months to three months might lead create bottlenecks in the appeals system. It could also lead to less well prepared appeals, which could cause more appeals to be withdrawn. This would have a negative impact on the development of renewable energy projects in Scotland and would make the achievement of the Executive's targets for renewables less likely to be met. Three months might not be long enough for applicants to lodge a considered appeal against a decision. This might lead developers to lodge appeals to protect their position, as happened in England when the time for appeals was reduced to three months.
British Energy: Regarding the proposal to reduce the period within which appeals may be lodged against refusal of planning permission from six months to three months, we do have some concerns. A similar change was introduced in England and Wales where Government subsequently reverted back to the 6 month period upon being deluged with appeals. We are of the view that 3 months is not long enough for applicants to lodge a considered appeal against a decision and, similar to the English experience, developers may be compelled to lodge appeals to protect their position.
Cinema Exhibitors' Association Ltd: The reduction proposed from six to three months for an appeal against an adverse decision, although understandable, may have unforeseen consequences in the light of the proposal that major changes to the proposal cannot be made. It may lead to numerous substantial fresh applications that may result in the consultation process being overloaded through the quantity of applications made.
Confederation of UK Coal Producers: CoalPro has some concerns over the proposed streamlined appeals process. The White Paper appears to prohibit the introduction of new
information during the appeal process by the appellant. However, the appellant must have the right to introduce information to challenge the reasons for refusal if those reasons are unreasonable or not based on information in the plan or in the application. CoalPro understands the argument that the appeal process should not be used to change the nature of an application in order to circumvent a refusal but suggests that the Executive should give more thought to this area.
Crown Castle UKLTD: This would result in a greater number of appeals and so be counter-productive. At present 6 months is usually enough time to submit an amended scheme that might be approved on re-application, assuming for example, an earlier refusal related to a matter of detail. If the time to lodge an appeal were reduced to three months we would have to lodge appeals with far greater frequency on a protective basis. That would not only be counter- productive, but also result in a waste of scarce public resources and increase unnecessarily tensions with local planning authorities. In England the ODPM introduced this reduction of time scales for appeals, only to back-track through further amendments to secondary legislation when the appeal system became excessively over-loaded and decisions were taking on average 12 months.
Forth Ports PLC: Would resist any reduction in the appeal period from 6 months to 3 months. A similar proposal within the Green Paper in England and Wales has resulted in a major backlog of appeals to be determined by the Inspectorate, and the benefits associated with this proposal are insufficient to outweigh the likely additional burden on the resources on local authorities and the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Units ( SEIRU).
Institute of Directors: The necessity to appeal within 3 months - already tired and failed in England - seems a recipe to line up lot of "automatic" appeals of feeling of "needs must" with no real time for reflection. Six months is fine - it doesn't need altered.
Mobile Operators Association ( MOA): The MOA notes that the time period for appeals in England was reduced from 6 to 3 months under The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003 [Statutory Instrument ( SI) 2003 No 2047]. However, this decision had the consequence of increasing the number of appeals submitted, as it did not give developers sufficient time to enter into positive negotiations to resolve disputes with the aim of producing positive planning outcomes. This increase in appeals resulted in a more demanding workload for the Planning Inspectorate, which had the consequence of increasing the average time for appeal decisions to over 52 weeks, thus substantially increasing delays for all developers. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister reversed this decision in January 2005, and the time frame for planning appeals has now been reverted to 6 months. This has reduced the pressure on the appeals system, and has helped the Planning Inspectorate to reduce the unacceptable delays that were being experienced. The MOA believes that the proposal outlined in the White Paper would, if implemented, result in a similar increase in the number of appeals submitted, and additional workloads for the Inquiry Reporters' Unit and the proposed local appeals review bodies. Therefore, we believe that the timeframe for submitting appeals should remain six months.
Orange PCS Ltd: No justification is given for the reduction in the time period and there can be no doubt that this will result in more appeals being lodged. The equivalent provision, recently introduced in England has been suspended due to the exponential increase in appeals. 3 months is simply not long enough to consult fully and prepare an amended proposal for the same site, consequently appeals will be lodged to protect applicants' positions.
Scottish Environmental Services Association ( SESA):SESA opposes this proposal as we do not consider three months to be sufficient to judge the implications of a refusal and to prepare a properly reasoned appeal.
Scottish Power: .Reducing the period to appeal from 6 to 3 months is not welcome. A similar move was implemented in England and was reversed very quickly following a deluge of the system. The time period of 3 months is too short for multi million pound developments which are often very complex, have a range of development stakeholders and require significant due diligence to consider appeal options.
SITA ( UK) Ltd: The Company is opposed to any reduction in the period within which appeals can be lodged. Waste management developments are often complex planning entities, and three months may not be sufficient for an applicant to be in a position to fully consider its position, prepare a case, and make a validly made appeal. The impact on the number of appeals that may result from such a legislative change should also not be under estimated - a similar revision applicable to England and Wales had to be reversed as a result of the upsurge in appeal volumes.
Tarmac Ltd: The same change in England has now been reversed. My main concern stems from experience in the preparation of appeals with particular regard to the Government advice to make a full and final submission rather than late introduction or responses with new materials.
Tesco Stores Ltd: Our experience in England is that reducing time limits for the submission of appeals from 6 to 3 months does not speed up the system, rather it risks increasing the workload centrally and slowing down decision making time-scales.
The Scottish Coal Company Limited ( SCCL): This proposal should not in normal circumstances prejudice an applicant's ability to consider whether an appeal is appropriate or not following legal opinion.
UNITE Group plc: Reserves its position on the reduction of the appeal time period to three months and the reduction in the duration period of planning permissions from 5 years to 3 years. Post application development issues can often span lengthy time periods. UNITE is not convinced that reducing these timescales will have a net overall benefit to the drive toward efficiency so clearly promoted in the White Paper. Instead, UNITE believes efficiencies should focus on the 'front end' of the planning process prior to decision making, rather than changing the longer time period on these matters which is available post decision making.
Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC: Reserves its position on the reduction of the appeal time period to three months and the reduction in the duration period of planning permissions from 5 years to 3 years. Post application development process issues such as financing projects and assembling large and difficult sites can often be a lengthy time period. Morrisons would not want to unnecessarily appeal and/or make an application to renew a planning permission. Morrisons is not convinced that reducing these timescales will have a net overall benefit to the drive toward efficiency promoted in the White Paper.
Professional Organisations
Institute of Civil Engineers Scotland: This is sensible but may benefit from consideration of a graded period in keeping with the revised development hierarchy.
RTPI Scotland: We support the reduction of the appeal period from six months to three months but would suggest that this should not commence until other parts of the system have bedded down. Otherwise, the "old" culture might result in a flood of appeals, as happened in England.
The Law Society of Scotland: The Society is concerned about the proposed reduction of the time period for appeals from 6 months to 3 months. It notes that this had been tried in England and resulted in a log jam of appeals by appellants seeking to safeguard their position and that they returned to a time period of 6 months. The Society sees no reason why that experience would not be repeated in Scotland, and counsels against the reduction.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): A similar proposal was introduced in England but had to be withdrawn after a significant increase in the number of appeals. We consider that the period of three months may not allow sufficient time to consider the merits of whether to lodge an appeal and we therefore object to this proposal.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Bell & Scott: In our view this is unnecessary. It is not our experience that appellants delay in making appeals. Appeals are usually lodged as soon as possible. It is likely that individuals or smaller commercial concerns with fewer resources will have more difficulty in complying with this reduced time limit than larger commercial concerns. In addition it must be noted that, in England, the appeal period has been reinstated at six months following a reduction to three months because the reduction led to a significant increase in the number of appeals.
Bruce and Partners: While I have some sympathy with this proposal, experience in England and Wales suggests that such a regime is simply unworkable. Consequently, I think it would be unwise for the Scottish Executive to continue with such a proposal.
Colliers CRE: In terms of Development Management Efficiency it is considered a retrograde step to reduce the length of time in which an appeal can be lodged to three months. As the recently failed English example of this experience outlined, it has the opposite effect from that sought and the SEIRU will be swamped with planning appeals. It is considered that the other appeal proposals will assist in reducing the case load of Reporters to those appeals that are both competent and soundly based. Thereafter and incrementally it is suggested that the time length to lodge a planning appeal could be cut to five months and thereafter to four, but not less than this time period.
Drivers Jonas: A similar proposal was introduced in England but had to be withdrawn after a significant increase in the number of appeals. We consider that the period of three months may not allow sufficient time to consider the merits of whether to lodge an appeal and we therefore object to this proposal.
GVA Grimley LLP: Reserves its position on the reduction of the appeal time period to three months. Post application development issues can often span lengthy time periods. GVA Grimley is not convinced that reducing these timescales will have a net overall benefit to the drive toward efficiency so clearly promoted in the White Paper. Instead, GVA Grimley believes efficiencies should focus on the 'front end' of the planning process prior to decision making, rather than changing the longer time period on these matters which is available post decision making.
Hargest & Wallace Planning: Strongly reject. Experience in England has demonstrated that this will be disastrous. In a large number of cases 6 months for an appeal allows developers to reconsider and re-work their proposals to try and reduce the objections to the development proposal. This allows dialogue with planning authorities and even the potential to determine replacement applications. This results in better development proposals. This would not be possible in three months. As a result the reaction of most developers to a 3 month period will be to appeal immediately and clog up the system with a significant number of less that ideal development proposals. The benefit of this proposal is also marginal. At present it takes 12 months plus from lodging an appeal to a decision (for larger scale proposals) and it takes seven months from the date of lodging an appeal to the start of a public local inquiry. A reduction of the appeal time by 3 months will have limited impact on uncertainty
Ledingham Chalmers: Six months is a ridiculously long period in which to reflect on whether to mark an appeal. Why move from six months to three months? Two months should be more than sufficient. It will not, in our view, lead to a proliferation of appeals. That suggestion is scare mongering.
MBM Planning & Development: In my view there is no need to reduce the time period for submission of appeals from 6 months to 3 months. This is likely to create significant problems and increased workload for SEIRU and planning authorities as recent experience in England has shown. In most cases where applications are refused, it takes more than 3 months for a revised proposal to be considered by a planning authority, so the opportunity to appeal the original refusal may be lost. Appeals may be lodged to protect interests and I would therefore suggest leaving the current appeal timescale at 6 months would be reasonable.
Muir Smith Evans: The proposal to reduce the period in which an appeal can be lodged from 6 to 3 months is ill-advised. By definition, the appeals concerned will relate to developments which are not minor. In our experience a refusal of planning permission can lead to negotiations between the applicant and the planning authority as to what may be an acceptable alternative proposal. A six-month period can allow for these negotiations and the submission and determination of an alternative scheme, avoiding the need for any appeal at all. A three-month period may lead to more appeals being lodged in order to keep open the applicant's options.
Paull & Williamsons: This was tried unsuccessfully in England and we do not see why it should be anymore successful in Scotland. Six months does not seem an excessive period for launching an appeal.
Turley Associates: Do not object to reducing the time period for the submission of appeals from 6 months to 3 months.
Warren Consultants: We are against the proposal to reduce this period from 6 months to 3 months and are surprised given the disastrous consequences of introducing this measure in England. The benefit of a longer time period is that it does allow more time for reconsideration of a proposal and/or negotiation with the local authority. If an applicant is put under pressure they will jump into an appeal to protect their rights even if they feel there is scope for further negotiation. We feel that the White Paper reveals a lack of recognition of the threat of an appeal and this threat having the benefit of forcing applicants and local authorities to "bash their heads together" to reach an agreement.
Academic Bodies
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: The reduction in time for appeal from 6 to 3 months is problematic as the experience in England shows. Planning Authorities were swamped with appeal case load and without extra resources there is no reason to expect the situation to be different in Scotland. The proposals on page 37 may go someway to alleviating such a situation but in our view the reduction serves no obvious purpose.
University of Edinburgh: In respect of the proposed reduction in the time period when appeals can be submitted from six months to three months, the UoE considers this would only be acceptable if reductions in the time to determine planning applications and appeals were made.
Community Councils
Broughty Ferry Community Council: We support this. A complaint by planners is that sometimes a LPA has put in a great deal of work relating to a PLI only for the appellant to withdraw just before the start. Sometimes the appellant may not have intended to go through the whole process in the first place. Consideration should be given to limiting this form of behaviour.
Currie Community Council: On the face of it, reducing the period for appeals from 6 months to 3 months appears reasonable. However, for objectors, this compresses the time they have to respond to sometimes very detailed planning appeals prepared by expert teams, so we would not welcome any reduction in this period. Any reduction would clearly benefit the appellant who has already prepared his case, unlike the objectors who may have to start more or less from scratch.
Voluntary Organisations
Brethren Gospel Trusts: We would respectfully draw the Scottish Executive's attention to the recent experience of the Planning Inspectorate in respect of England and Wales. There the reduction of the time limit for appeals resulted in a substantial increase in the number of appeals registered. This appears to have resulted from developer perception that there was insufficient time to negotiate an alternative scheme with a local planning authority following refusal. We believe that a similar result may flow from this proposal in Scotland. Increased workload for the Scottish Reporters Unit is unlikely to result in greater efficiency, rather a reduction in standards of service and increased handling times for appeals.
Helensburgh Study Group: We support this proposal. It would only apply to developers if no Community (Second Party -wrongly referred to as 'Third Party') Right of Appeal is introduced. However, the limitations -reduction of time from planning application decision to appeal, the early determination of vexatious appeals and the rejection of repeat appeals -could also be applied to communities if a Community Appeal were to be introduced, which, of course, it should.
Planning Aid Scotland: The proposed reduction from 6 months to 3 months is intended to reduce uncertainty for the community. However, this will only apply where an appeal is not lodged. Decreasing the length of time allowed to make an appeal could lead to an increased number of appeals motivated by applicants seeking to protect their interests than to enter into negotiations with the planning authority. In turn, we believe that an increased proportion of decisions being appealed will bring more uncertainty for the community in the decision-making process.
Rural Scotland: We note in recent technical press reports that the reduction of appeal periods from 6 to 3 months has been withdrawn in England as not being, after all, helpful as a reduced period may have the result of increasing rather than decreasing numbers of appeals. We suspect that the resource implications of these reforms for LPAs have been under- played by the Executive. The new system should be aimed at improving the quality and outcome of planning; cost savings and speed of decisions should not be seen as the rationale for change.
Scottish Council for National Parks: This was tried in England and Wales with very unfortunate consequences. It caused people to submit planning appeals almost as a reflex action to a refusal and clogged up the system. They have now reverted to the previous system of allowing 6 months for the appeal to be submitted. We should be willing to learn from that experience.
Scottish Renewables Forum: We are concerned that reducing time period for appeals from six months to three months will clog the appeals system. The reduction in time will encourage badly prepared appeals, more of them and ultimately lead to more being withdrawn. Given the complexity of many developments the benefits of a reduction in appeal times are difficult to identify.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: This is very welcome and could even be reduced to two months especially given the accompanying proposals preventing the submission of revised or supplementary information before the determination of an appeal.
The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland ( AHSS): The AHSS wishes to welcome the proposed reduction of the time available for an applicants appeal to three months from six months. Such an amendment would be fair to all sides within a planning application, and would remove some of the uncertainty that can currently exist within community campaigns and the voluntary sector following the refusal of an application.
Private Individuals
Russell, TJ and TS: The reduction of the time limit for an appeal after refusal of an application from six months to three months does not seem a good idea.
« Previous | Contents | Next »