« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Duration of Planning Permissions
Local Authorities
Dundee City Council: This measure will reduce the uncertainty in planning authorities and in local communities as to whether an approved development is likely to be implemented. Some developments are approved and simply lapse after a prolonged period. It would appear that planning authorities will retain the flexibility to set alternative periods as provided for by Section 58 (1) (b) will remain.
East Dunbartonshire Council: This is welcomed but it should be recognised that will result in increased workload from developer wishing to have their consents replaced before the end of three years.
Glasgow City Council: A reduction to 3 years, as the standard, could lead to an increase in complex applications, as developers of major proposals may come back every 2/3 years to renew their permissions, with the attendant increased demands on staff time and resources. The proposal does not take into account factors which may dictate that a development will not take place due to, e.g. a lack of funding being made available or a change of plan by the developer. There looks to be little benefit in this proposal.
Glasgow City Council: This proposal raises concerns. Market conditions are likely to be the prime determinant of when a development starts and it is unlikely that the planning authority will be in the best position to predict when this may be. It should also be noted that the granting of planning consent is often not the only factor required to allow a development to start on site. Licenses, for example, may be required for some developments e.g. casinos. There may be some limited implications for staff time arising from this proposal, should the council choose to specify a period within development should commence. A reduction to 3 years could lead to an increase in complex applications, as developers of major proposals may come back every 2/3 years to renew their permissions, with the attendant increased demands on staff time and resources. The proposal does not take into account factors which may dictate that a development will not take place due to, e.g. a lack of funding being made available or a change of plan by the developer. There looks to be little benefit in this proposal. It is likely that if a 3 year timescale was introduced more renewal applications would be submitted to authorities, increasing their workload.
Midlothian Council: The White Paper on page 33 proposes that the statutory period within which development must begin, be reduced from 5 to 3 years. The Council wanted consideration to be given to this period being reduced further to 18 months, especially in the context of derelict sites.
Moray Council: This can be supported in principle, as it will reduce the period of uncertainty about whether development will commence. However, the ability to vary the statutory period for commencement is not new and exists in current legislation. A shorter time-scale may present difficulties over the phasing of large-scale developments, including availability of resources to deal with developments where suspensive conditions and pre-conditions for commencement have to be satisfied
North Lanarkshire Council: More flexibility is welcome but it would also be helpful to review the definition of works which define whether development has technically started. There is also a wider issue of concern regarding developments which are started but not completed within a reasonable time.
South Ayrshire Council: This will assist in reducing uncertainty, particularly for local communities, however there is no proposal to impose a period within which development must be completed, nor regulate the extent of works which constitute commencement of development. Therefore developers will still have the ability to validate their permission indefinitely by implementing a minor aspect of their proposal within the specified commencement period.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Scottish Water: In many cases planning permissions will be linked to applications for water and wastewater connections, where the duration of connection applications could be in excess of the 3-year period. This is a point of particular relevance to the issue of reservation of capacity. We would welcome the opportunity to explore the potential implications of this with the Scottish Executive.
The Development Industry
Dawn Homes Limited: We can see no valid reason for reducing the duration of planning consent from 5 years to 3 years. There is little evidence of the current duration of consent causing blight and reducing the duration to 3 years will only erode the confidence of businesses to invest in Scotland. We should add that there is no substantive evidence of housebuilders sitting on land banks; it is more likely that delays are caused, and indeed lengthened, by the difficulties of infrastructure provision, especially involving Scottish Water, and the negotiating of Section 75 agreements. With the regard to the latter, some Councils show such utter intransigence and unreasonableness to reaching a supposed agreement that one wonders if their earlier decision to be minded to grant planning permission subject to the conclusion of a Section 75 agreement reflects their true desires. It seems to us that some from of independent arbitration service to scrutinise and resolve these matters quickly is essential if desired by the applicants (or indeed the Councils themselves) in order to break such impasses in the system.
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): Concerns relating to the proposed duration of planning permission especially in relation to large mixed use schemes. There are numerous factors which determine when a development starts, including market conditions, infrastructure issues, ground conditions etc. Planning authorities should not be in a position to decide what the appropriate position should be. Complex projects often take a considerable time to co-ordinate and significant delays could occur if planning consents expire and applications have to be re-submitted. There are also factors other than planning consent which are required before a development commences. We are aware that the British Property Federation has raised the issue of developers starting work on schemes before they are ready, just so that work is perceived to have commenced while the consent is still live. Developers may also be faced with the situation where they have spent 3 years, from receiving a planning consent, securing the funding for a scheme only to have to apply for planning permission again with no guarantee that permission will be granted. However, it is an inevitable consequence of the reduction to a 3 year timescale that more renewal applications will be submitted to local authorities, increasing their workload. We therefore object to this proposal.
Grosvenor Investments: For larger projects this is a very dangerous suggestion as these projects are very complicated and they necessarily take a very long time to progress. Five years is appropriate and ensures enough time to make the necessary advances. We cannot see any benefit in reducing the duration.
Homes for Scotland: 3 years is too short, given the experience, for example, of Scottish Water delays. There is no evidence of planning blight where delay extends to 5 years, as stated in the White Paper. While we would consider evidence where blight has occurred, Homes for Scotland view is that there is not a strong case for such a change.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): Reducing duration from 5 years to 3 years could be problematic, particularly on large scale complex schemes where land acquisition, the completion of legal agreements and compliance with planning conditions regularly take longer than 3 years to conclude. In addition to this, there has to be a realisation that changing market conditions affect the most appropriate timing of development commencing and 3 years is considered to be too short a timescale for any lulls in the market to recover and allow development to commence. While it is appreciated that planning authorities will be given the flexibility to decide on a case by case basis an appropriate period within which a development must be begun, it is likely the vast majority will impose the statutory requirement and thus perhaps jeopardise any development from taking place. The most likely consequence of such an amendment being adopted would be an increase in the number of applications submitted under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992, in an effort to increase the time period for commencement of development. Rather than reducing uncertainty as to whether a permission is to be implemented, as suggested by the White Paper, reducing the 'life' of a planning permission is likely to raise uncertainty for planning authorities and local residents as it would increase the possibility of an Article 5 application being submitted to keep the consent alive. Removing this proposal from the proposed amendments (and leaving the current arrangements in place) would be a more logical course of action that would also reduce the likelihood of an increase in the number of Article 5 applications being submitted to planning authorities.
Manor Kingdom Group: Manor Kingdom agrees with Homes for Scotland's view that 3 years is too short, given the experience, for example, of Scottish Water delays. There is no evidence of planning blight where delay extends to 5 years, as stated in the White Paper.
Muir Group: The proposal to reduce the life span of a planning permission to three years is not acceptable given past experience of delays on such matters as infrastructure ( e.g. Scottish Water delays).
Stuart Milne Holdings: This Company would not support the reduction in time of a planning permission from five years to three years given that there is no evidence of planning blight where the period extends to five years as stated in the White Paper. Furthermore, given the experience of this Company with delays caused by Scottish Water, the reduction in timescale to three years is clearly inappropriate.
The Buchanan Partnership: Not convinced that reducing the duration of planning permission will have a net overall benefit to the drive toward efficiency so clearly promoted in the White Paper.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: In respect of reducing the life of planning permission from 5 to 3 years, the Walker Group view is that 3 years is too short, given the experience, for example, of Scottish Water delays. There is no evidence of planning blight where delay extends to 5 years, as stated in the White Paper.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: The proposal to limit the statutory period to three years is a retrograde step. On major projects it takes time to assemble land, undertake the necessary infrastructure investment, promote the land for development and complete the building works. Reducing this to three years is unacceptable; it needs to be for a minimum of five years with a discretionary ability of the planning authority to extend this in special circumstances.
Other Businesses
ASDA: It is not clear how this would reduce uncertainty and may simply increase the total number of planning applications, if renewal ones are required more frequently. However, as at present, Planning Authorities will still be able to impose (and the developer ask for) different time periods from the "default" ones set out in the Act.
Association of Electricity Producers: In a number of renewable energy developments the construction of the development is dependent upon various factors. Securing planning permission is one factor. However, a large number will be dependent upon the necessary transmission or grid upgrades being completed before the projects can come on line. Lengthy delays to system upgrades which are no fault of the developer are possible. There should be provision to increase the length of planning permissions in such cases.
British Energy: The proposal to reduce the statutory period for consents to be implemented to three years (instead of the current five years) is not a measure we endorse. For a developer this might reduce the value of a planning permission if it potentially meant a choice between starting a development during unfavourable market conditions or re-applying. If the latter takes place this will place an unnecessary burden on the planning system.
Crown Castle UKLTD: We generally support this approach, although Section 58 (1) (b) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 already enables the standard five year period to be varied. If local planning authorities are concerned about unimplemented planning permissions stacking up they should use the statutory powers already conferred upon them.
Forth Ports PLC: Would resist any reduction in the duration of full planning permissions from 5 years to 3 years. The benefits associates with this proposal are insufficient to outweigh the likely additional burden on the resources of local authorities and the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Units ( SEIRU).
Mobile Operators Association ( MOA): We disapprove of the proposal to reduce the statutory period within which a development should begin after receiving planning approval to three years. This would reduce the time and ability developers have to investigate alternatives to a planned development that concerned communities might suggest during the consultation phase. Operators may legitimately pause before developing an installation due to (a) a reconfiguration of the network elsewhere which may mean a requirement to examine whether the recently approved installation is still needed; (b) where the operator may become aware of another imminent proposal which may impact on the viability of the site (for example a neighbouring development currently being proposed which may affect the signal etc - there may be time delays in application, decision and appeal where the operator may not wish to invest a substantial sum before a decision is made on the nearby application); or (c) where the local authority or developers indicate a medium-term re-development proposal for the area - again the operator may wish to pause and attempt to work with the LPA/developer to incorporate telecoms into the new plans.
Orange PCS Ltd: Although not strongly opposed to this there are potential adverse consequences. Where there is opposition to an initial site and alternatives are being examined, there may be insufficient time to complete the process and operators will have to revert to the original proposal. Second, existing practice is to build some surplus capacity into applications to avoid frequent submissions, a 3 year time span makes it more likely that additional capacity will be required after this triggering further applications.
Scottish Chambers of Commerce: The proposal to reduce the life span of a planning permission to three years seems unwise given past experience of delays on such matters as development constraints which are often in the hands of third parties.
Scottish Environmental Services Association ( SESA): The proposal to reduce to three years the maximum period for the implementation of consents is too restrictive and could seriously prejudice many waste and secondary resource management developments including almost any facility that requires an IPPC approval. A five year period also protects the development from the time it may take to resolve a judicial review. It is vital that local authorities are able to retain the flexibility to grant longer periods.
Scottish Power: We would recommend that the proposed reduction in consent period from 5 to 3 years is acceptable, assuming there is an opportunity to apply to renew the consent without starting the EIA / planning submission afresh.
SITA ( UK) Ltd: It is considered that the reduction in the statutory period for implementing planning permissions from 5 years to 3 will compromise the ability to legally implement permissions. 3 years is not considered sufficient in some cases to implement permissions, particularly those subject to extensive pre-development conditions, the attachment of which is routine with regard to permissions for waste management facilities.
Tarmac Ltd: In respect of minerals I suggest this should be held (or at least recommended in advice) at 5 years rather the suggested figure of 3 years. The planning, development and phasing of replacement of reserves is quite distinct to other forms of development that do not require the same length of lead in time. The result otherwise is the commencement or maintenance of operations where not absolutely necessary.
The Scottish Coal Company Limited ( SCCL): The proposal to reduce the duration of planning permissions to 3 years instead of the current 5 years should in normal circumstances not be an issue. However, the length of time needed to develop a new opencast site once planning permission has been granted can exceed the proposed three years. Due to the nature and forward business planning required to maintain coal production levels it is hoped that in certain circumstances the proposed duration period can be extended if needed by judging each case on its merits. Provided local authorities retain the ability to impose a commencement period longer than three years (which seems to be the case) then we have no objection to the default position being 3 years.
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.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): Concerns relating to the proposed duration of planning permission especially in relation to large mixed use schemes. There are numerous factors which determine when a development starts, including market conditions, infrastructure issues, ground conditions etc. Planning authorities should not be in a position to decide what the appropriate position should be. Complex projects often take a considerable time to co-ordinate and significant delays could occur if planning consents expire and applications have to be re-submitted. There are also factors other than planning consent which are required before a development commences. We are aware that the British Property Federation has raised the issue of developers starting work on schemes before they are ready, just so that work is perceived to have commenced while the consent is still live. Developers may also be faced with the situation where they have spent 3 years, from receiving a planning consent, securing the funding for a scheme only to have to apply for planning permission again with no guarantee that permission will be granted. However, it is an inevitable consequence of the reduction to a 3 year timescale that more renewal applications will be submitted to local authorities, increasing their workload. We therefore object to this proposal.
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.
The Law Society of Scotland: The Society suspects that the proposal to reduce the duration of a planning permission from five to three years (unless otherwise specified) could give rise to considerable difficulty for developers, particularly if there are suspensive conditions or pre-conditions to be satisfied before development can commence. It would prefer to see the five year duration remain, although planning authorities might be encouraged to reduce the period in appropriate cases.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Bell & Scott: We have difficulty in understanding the justification for the proposal to reduce the statutory period from five years to three years. Acting as we do for many developers it is our experience that delays in implementing permissions relate to factors outwith the control of developers. Reducing the statutory period is not likely to bring forward development but may well cause difficulties and added expense in bringing forward approved developments.
Bruce and Partners: This appears to be based on the presumption that developers sit on planning permissions - evidence for which I have yet to see. However, where Planning Authorities believe this to be happening they can remove sites from the effective category in the annual Housing Land Audit. I fail to see why such a simple procedure could not be used instead of introducing new measures which will only lead to further planning applications in a system that is already straining under the sheer weight of application numbers.
Collar, Neil: Guidance should be provided to authorities on the circumstances in which a period of more than 3 years might be appropriate, with emphasis on the need for flexibility in dealing with different types of development. 3 years is not a long time, particularly given the growing list of pre-conditions which need to be satisfied before work can proceed, and the difficulties with infrastructure provision. It is therefore essential that the legislation retains procedures for renewing permissions.
Drivers Jonas: Concerns relating to the proposed duration of planning permission especially in relation to large mixed use schemes. There are numerous factors which determine when a development starts, including market conditions, infrastructure issues, ground conditions etc. Planning authorities should not be in a position to decide what the appropriate position should be. Complex projects often take a considerable time to co-ordinate and significant delays could occur if planning consents expire and applications have to be re-submitted. There are also factors other than planning consent which are required before a development commences. We are aware that the British Property Federation has raised the issue of developers starting work on schemes before they are ready, just so that work is perceived to have commenced while the consent is still live. Developers may also be faced with the situation where they have spent 3 years, from receiving a planning consent, securing the funding for a scheme only to have to apply for planning permission again with no guarantee that permission will be granted. However, it is an inevitable consequence of the reduction to a 3 year timescale that more renewal applications will be submitted to local authorities, increasing their workload. We therefore object to this proposal.
GVA Grimley LLP: Reserves its position on 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. 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: Do not support. Uncertain what real benefits would result - if such benefits are real it is already within the power of planning authorities to reduce the time period of consents.
Paull & Williamsons: The proposal to reduce the time for commencing development from 5 to 3 years will cause problems for developers, particularly where there are pre-conditions or suspensive conditions to be purified before commencement. Ministers will be aware that planning authorities have been making extensive and increasing use of suspensive conditions.
Turley Associates: We do not support the proposed reduction in the duration of a planning permission from 5 to 3 years. This will reduce flexibility for developers and will increase the number of renewal applications which will be granted anyway. The current timescales do not cause significant problems and change therefore seems unnecessary.
Academic Bodies
University of Edinburgh: The UoE objects to the reduction in the duration of planning permissions from five to three years. Most importantly, many of the UoE's projects have long lead in times and involve complex funding scenarios where the five year duration of planning permissions is essential.
Community Councils
Broughty Ferry Community Council: We support the reduction from 5 to 3 years.
Culter Community Council: In the past we have dealt with 5 yearly repeat renewals of planning applications of the 'Local Development' type and size. Under 'Duration of planning permissions' (page 32) will these now be stopped or renewal permitted every 3 years instead?
Currie Community Council: If a Development Plan is expected to have a life span of no more than 5 years, then the same must apply to the lifespan of a planning application. The proposed commencement date following planning approval is 3 years (page 33), but there is no date by which the approved work must be completed. (See also page 73.) Therefore, we recommend that planning approvals should have a maximum life span of 10 years, and that any work outstanding at the end of 10 years should be the subject of a new planning application to ensure that it meets the changed circumstances of updated Local Plans. This should be retrospective in relation to existing applications where work has not been completed within say 15 years of the granting of approval. The concept of notifying the local authority at the completion of work should apply to all planning approvals. It is well-known that by carrying out demolition work, construction activity is considered to have started. The fact that the site then remains undeveloped for years means that the system is being abused as the site notionally appreciates in value under the protection of a planning approval that may have little validity 15 or 20 years later. We have one such situation in our community where considerable efforts have been made by the developer to ensure that legally, the site is still covered by a valid planning approval.
Kennoway Community Council: We would suggest the duration of planning permissions be reduced to 2 years.
Voluntary Organisations
General Trustees of the Church of Scotland: The General Trustees do not support this proposal. They consider that the shorter period does not take account of the fact that for many voluntary organisations including individual Congregations, the process of obtaining funding, contract tendering, etc can mean that planning consent would expire prior to the commencement of building works. The Trustees would press for the minimum period to remain at five years.
Portobello Campaign against the Superstore: The reduction to three years for a start to be made on site is welcomed and brings this in line with other statutory controls. It would be helpful if a clear definition is included here as to what a start is, for example, the building should be at damp proof course level.
Scottish Renewables Forum: We feel this issue requires further discussion. Three years as a default period for development to begin may not be appropriate for EIA and major developments where there are infrastructure upgrades required (grid and access), and that it shouldn't be seen as unusual to depart from that timescale. We would suggest that there should be a clear mechanism to extend timescales where good reason(s) exists. Some renewable energy developers are already facing this issue whereby they have a consent certificate but are unlikely to start building for the next few years because access to the National Grid between Beauly and Denny is restricted. Some flexibility in this proposal would be practical.
West Kilbride Amenity Society: We welcome the suggestion that development consent should be valid for three years before building need commence, but agree with the Scottish Civic Trust's contention that it should also be time limited to completion or renewal of consent. Perhaps we feel this more because of the restart of a local development which was given consent more than 30 years ago when circumstances were very different.
Private Individuals
Oliver, Jean: There should be legislation in the case of abandoned sites. At present, developers can come in, mess up, and move out leaving an unsightly, dangerous, environmentally unfriendly mess behind. Perhaps a "bond" similar to those deposited for the provision of roads would be workable.
« Previous | Contents | Next »