« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Statutory requirement for pre-application discussions
Local authorities
Aberdeen City Council: The principle of greater community engagement is to be welcomed. It will be important to establish procedures to ensure that the process provides the general view of the community.
City of Edinburgh Council: This is strongly welcomed. However, the definition of "major" development is too narrow. The Council's existing procedure encourages developers of a much wider range of major and complex schemes to have early discussion with representative community groups, on a voluntary basis. Although time spent at pre-application stage can be a worthwhile investment in achieving a better quality of application, it creates a pressure on resources for the planning authority and the White Paper makes no proposals for income generation from this activity. It is recommended that Council seeks a wider definition of the type of proposals to be subject to pre-application consultation requirements, and offers assistance to the Scottish Executive in drafting procedural guidance based on this Council's experience.
Dundee City Council: Wishes to be satisfied as to how essential and effective pre-application discussions and the engagement of consultees are to be ensured. It is unclear as to whether pre-application engagement will be mandatory and how this will be enforced. Whilst the principle of community engagement by applicants for major or contentious applications is accepted, the White Paper does not make it clear whether its assessment of the adequacy of the engagement will constitute a material consideration in determining the application.
East Dunbartonshire Council: This requirement will however only be effective if developers are obliged to list the points raised by the Planning Authority in pre application discussions and indicate how they have been responded to. Clarification over whether submission of an inadequate report could be grounds for considering the application invalid would be of assistance. The requirement for a public input to pre application discussions is common although potentially a source of stress within the community and experience in East Dunbartonshire indicated that the level of workload generated from community interest in approaches from developers with inappropriate proposals can be crippling. The additional resources required to manage this could be very considerable indeed.
East Lothian Council: The proposals requiring developers to consult with local people prior to submitting certain categories of major applications are welcome. However it would be better if all applications classed as major developments were subject to this requirement.
East Renfrewshire Council: Supported in principle. However, consideration needs to be given to any role the Council might play in this, including how this may relate to pre-application discussions with the Planning Department.
Fife Council: This is supported as it may reduce adversarial elements within the current system and allow consensus to be built around key planning applications. This may require additional resources from the Local Authority to facilitate engagement between applicants and the community.
Glasgow City Council: A key concern for the Council is that an application could be declared invalid if there has been inadequate consultation -who arbitrates? Further advice is required from the SE on how they expect this system to operate effectively. The number of applications affected by this proposal is likely to be fairly limited. There will be additional duties on officers to check to ensure that pre-application consultation reports have been carried out and are compliant with SE advice.
Inverclyde Council: At face value, the burden is on the developer. However the reality is that there will be public contact with the planning authority seeking out background information and views over a longer period than currently, and with consequential resource implications.
Moray Council: As a statutory requirement this would allow local people to influence how, rather than whether development should proceed and provides developers with early feedback on their proposals. Applicants may be reluctant to discuss commercially sensitive or confidential information and are likely to view this requirement as a source of delay. Clearly further guidance is required to ensure that the rules of engagement are unambiguous and clearly understood by all involved, and how 'appropriate consultation' is to be evaluated. What happens if the lack of consultation is not considered to be appropriate? Would this be a material consideration sufficient to warrant refusal of an application?
North Lanarkshire Council: Experience of this process, where developers have had direct consultation with local people, has in some circumstances led to confusion about the role of the Local Authorities. It is recommended that consultation should also take place with the Planning Authority in these cases.
Perth & Kinross Council: This offers the prospect of public confusion and frustration, may result in the Council becoming involved (and in being perceived to have pre-judged any subsequent planning application?), and may be of limited value based on our experience of pre-application consultations to date. It may result in unnecessary use of resources if the prospective applicant does not pursue the proposed development. There are potentially significant resource implications, subject to definition of applicable developments and the scope of Council involvement.
Renfrewshire Council: Support in principle. This is formalising what the better developers are currently doing and will significantly improve the awareness and understanding of proposals by local communities allowing them to participate better in the planning process.
South Ayrshire Council: This is a welcome proposal to ensure that local people can be more effectively involved in the process, and may in some cases lead to potential objections being resolved prior to submission of the application. However, clarification should be sought as to the extent of local consultation proposed, and the form it will take if there is no established community group. Clarification should also be sought on the powers a planning authority will have to require further community consultation if this is deemed insufficient, and whether this will also be a matter to be concluded satisfactorily before the application can be registered.
South Lanarkshire Council: The formalisation of 'pre-application' consultation for a specified range of applications is broadly supported. However, clear and unambiguous guidance on the extent and nature of this 'pre-application' consultation requires to be set out by the Scottish Executive to enable planning authorities to assess in an objective and consistent manner whether this 'pre-application' consultation has been adequate.
West Lothian Council: This proposal is supported. The local authority must be party to, and preferably lead, the consultation process. There is scope for extending the principle to other forms of development - perhaps all national and major applications. The local authority's powers in circumstances where it is unhappy with the level of consultation undertaken will have to be clarified. It is assumed that inappropriate levels of pre-application consultation will be a defensible reason for refusal, or a reason to invoke the proposed 'power to decline to determine applications'.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Defence Estates: Defence Estates recognise that many applicants already consult with local people voluntarily in advance of making a planning application. However, in some instances the issue of confidentiality is a key concern for applicants prior to the submission of a planning application. Defence Estates wish to highlight the key aspect of confidentiality and national security. It is important that these issues are recognised in the implementation of the White Paper and that there is flexibility to ensure that disclosure of matters of national security are not inadvertently permitted through the planning reforms.
Health & Safety Executive: We would suggest a fourth bullet point where there would be a statutory requirement for pre-application consultation and that would be, "Where the Health and Safety Executive has notified a consultation zone to the PA". We believe that there may be an issue under the Human Rights Act that requires LPAs or developers to notify residents or prospective residents if they would fall within the consultation zone of a MAH site.
NHS Lothian: A particular concern for NHS Lothian is the importance of ensuring that health provision is recognised as a key part of the infrastructure of communities, and to achieve this there must be full and early engagement of health planners with the local Planning System when any significant housing developments are being considered. This will particularly be the case for those developments which are seen to fall into the category of 'major developments', defined in section 5.1.3 of the White paper to include "large scale housing developments". These are likely to have an impact on the requirement for development of primary care and community health services; General Medical, dental, pharmacy and ophthalmic services, community nursing, health visiting, school nursing and other services best delivered locally. The cumulative effect of a number of smaller local housing developments will also impact on primary health care services.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: It is SEPA's experience that pre-application discussions can be a useful way of ironing out issues at an early stage. It is also our experience, however, that this approach requires very significant resource input. Currently, pre-application discussions are undertaken in different ways across Scotland depending upon the planning authority, the developer, the proposal and the site. As a non-statutory activity, SEPA does not currently prioritise participation in such discussions, preferring in the main to provide information and comments when consulted on a specific proposal as part of our normal statutory consultee duties. Making pre-application discussion statutory for certain types of development across Scotland would therefore require a considerable resource allocation for all involved, but particularly from SEPA, given that virtually all of these types of applications will involve fairly significant environmental issues. As we understand, statutory pre application discussion will apply to EIA development, development contrary to the DP and bad neighbour developments. This may result in some 80-90 cases per annum where statutory discussions are required ( EIAs alone are currently at around 55-60 per annum). This will therefore require considerable effort over and above current activities. It is worth noting that all SEPA's planning liaison activities are unresourced. Unlike planning authorities, SEPA receives no fee for any work undertaken in respect of its engagement with planning. Thus, while we understand the real benefits of this proposal, SEPA would request that the resource implications for all parties are fully understood before this proposal is progressed. In any event, SEPA would urge that if pre-application discussions were to become mandatory then the Executive produces clear and simple guidance and procedures in order to ensure that there are consistent and resource efficient approaches, as far as possible.
Scottish Water: Welcomed, as we have noted that certain planning authorities do not currently allow this to take place due to planning authority resource issues.
Other Public Bodies
Central Scotland Forest Trust:CSFT supports these proposals. While they will require the applicant to spend more on pre-application work, this should be offset by the reduced likelihood of a refused application and appeal due to public objections.
The Development Industry
Elphinstone Land: We welcome the proposals for statutory procedures for pre application discussions, at present, much time can be wasted, since the position of the planning authorities can often change radically as discussions progress. However, we feel that pre application discussions should be brought into the processing agreements which are proposed in the White Paper for post application procedures, which we welcome. Indeed, it would be desirable if processing of legal agreements should not be brought within the ambit of processing agreements, since these can often take longer than processing the planning application itself. We do not feel that the sanctions proposed in the White Paper for non compliance of processing agreements would be effective, rather that the efforts of those involved were concentrated on retrieving time lost.
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): Regarding proposals for pre-application consultations, we consider that further details and definition are required as to how this proposal would work in practice. Further definition of 'major developments' is required. Similarly, further definition of larger-scale 'Bad Neighbours' is required. The White Paper proposes that where there are unresolved issues arising from pre-application consultations, these should be considered as part of the processing of the planning application by the planning authority. It is unclear as to how this would work in practice. If mediation is required, then who would undertake this?
Grosvenor Investments: We already ensure that we undertake consultation programmes as a matter of course and we understand the necessity for consultation when plans fall outside the local plan. However, there are practical problems with pre-application consultation. For example, to what extent would developers be able to speak to planners pre-application? It would appear to be more important to have access to the planning officers and consultees to ensure the scheme is appropriate before the project is submitted to rigorous scrutiny. Our proposal regarding procedures is as follows:
- The pre-application meeting would agree the scope and timetable of the development and consultation, in addition to setting up a relationship with the appropriate planning officer. This planning officer would remain the major communication point for the duration of the project.
- Once the application is lodged, we would be happy with a longer consultation period (say three months) during which input would be sought from the local authority, statutory consultees, interest groups and the local community. The consultation period should be strictly observed
- After the consultation period, the plan would be mended if necessary and agreed with the officers before being presented to the local authority planning committee by the applicants. The presentation would incorporate the consultation responses and the planning department input.
Homes for Scotland: We support these procedures as a welcome addition to the planning application process. There is currently a very non-committal attitude from existing development control planners in planning authorities when conducting pre-application discussions or meetings and statutory procedures should address this problem. Pre-application discussions must carry with them greater commitment by planning authorities and, as indicated previously, represent the corporate view of the authority and not be subject to unexpected or last minute change.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): The requirement for this to become a statutory responsibility in certain cases is another example of an increased workload being passed onto developers in an attempt to generate greater public interest in the planning process. The proposed requirement for applicants to provide a report of the pre-application consultations with their application and allowing local people to bring alleged failures by the developer to undertake pre-application discussions to the attention of Ministers is quite simply considered a step too far. While there is no doubt that in some instances pre-application discussions can assist in making schemes more acceptable, there is a concern that introduction of new proposals as outlined in the White Paper will effectively mean that developers' schemes could be 'hijacked' by local communities who will effectively be given an opportunity to request endless alterations to a scheme that could have significant time and financial implications for a developer. How far, for example, would an applicant be expected to go in seeking to address community concerns, how many design iterations would be required etc? This proposal fails to properly acknowledge that few community representatives truly appreciate the range of financial, technical, environmental and land ownership issues that have a bearing upon the shape of a proposed development. There is a concern that, if anything, this proposal will increase the likelihood of souring relations between applicants and local communities before a planning application has even been submitted. This is another example of the current reforms effectively penalising developers while continuing to be pre-occupied with a desire to only allow developments where local people have been listened to. Rather than make pre-application discussions a statutory requirement, it is considered that issuing a best practice advice note would be a fairer and more constructive way to proceed.
Manor Kingdom Group: We support these procedures as a welcome addition to the planning application process. There is currently a very non-committal attitude from existing development control planners when conducting pre-application discussions or meetings and statutory procedures should address this problem. Pre-application discussions must carry with them greater commitment by planning authorities and, as indicated previously, represent the corporate view of the authority and not be subject to unexpected or last minute change.
Persimmon Homes: This provision is welcomed and we have significant experience in this field. The scope of community engagement will have to be clearly defined if meaningful discussion is to take place. The need for clear procedures is important if LAs can refuse to register an application. The LA will also have to be extensively involved in the process, especially where developer and community views are at variance and mediation may be required. This could also produce a significant drain on LPA resources.
Stewart Milne Homes: It is pertinent that pre-application discussions carry greater weight than they currently do in the planning process. Much work is undertaken on the basis of these discussions and all too often the Council's position changes once an application is lodged. There is a requirement that Planning Officers have the relevant skills and are sufficiently empowered to provide the Council's opinion when these meetings are held. These meetings should be fully minuted and adopted as the Council's position.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: The proposal to engage with local people and stakeholders is accepted but it requires the planning authority to provide a clear indication on whom to consult and how to achieve engagement, especially as this will be one aspect of their assessment whether to register an application or not. Recent research from the Office of Chief Researcher, Research Findings No. 16/2005 states: "Respondents in more deprived areas tended to be less well informed and less likely to have been involved in any activity. They also felt they would be unlikely to take part in future consultation but were unable to identify any change or support that would encourage them to participate."
Other Businesses
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: Existing Scottish Executive Planning Policy Guidance makes clear the important role pre-application discussions play at present in the planning process and it is in the interest of an applicant to engage in discussion with a Planning Authority at an early stage to prevent costly amendments to an application later on. Further, there is a real concern that some local views, whilst perhaps, genuinely held, may be based on a biased and/or misinformed view with no justifiable basis in planning terms and no real understanding of the proposal. We would therefore be concerned if an applicant was required to take all local views into account regardless of whether or not these had any justifiable basis in planning terms. Whilst the benefits of "front loading" the planning applications can be seen, is the process not at risk of being even lengthier whilst agreement is reached with all parties?
ASDA: There may be situations where pre-application discussion is not necessary and so making it a statutory requirement may simply add unnecessary delay. If applicants are to be required to do this then expressions of support by the local community should be regarded as a material consideration.
Association of Electricity Producers: We welcome the requirement for pre-application consultations. It is something that many developers currently practice. We would be very interested in learning more about the precise details of the requirements and how planning authorities will determine whether the required amount of consultation has taken place. Developers should have a right to appeal against decisions made by planners regarding the required amount of consultation. The proposals do not appear to provide for an appeal against an unreasonable decision regarding pre-application consultation.
CBI Scotland: The White Paper quite rightly recognises the need to enhance local participation at the 'front-end' of the planning process. We recognise that in many communities there has been a significant break down in trust between local people and local planning authorities. This will not be remedied overnight but there are examples of good practice across the country that can be drawn down and used to design user friendly processes that deliver comprehensive local consultation, without creating too much bureaucracy. Industry must play its part as well. It must recognise that planning serves wider interests than their own. It has to be willing to work in new ways and to embrace proper consultation with local communities. It also has to accept that there will be consequences of failing to do so. The best companies already do this and they should set the example for the rest.
Crown Castle UKLTD: We support greater inclusion through pre-application consultation, already encouraged by SPP1. We have experience to suggest that with proactive dialogue, it may be possible to achieve consensus of opinion or help allay public concerns from the outset where reasonably practical and sensible. As part of an industry commitment to greater transparency and community involvement, CCUK undertakes extensive pre-application consultations with the local community and LPA. Notwithstanding this, we do have strong reservations about this becoming a statutory requirement. In particular, we are concerned that the local planning authority will be the determining body as to whether satisfactory pre-application consultation has been undertaken and we have reservations as to how this will be determined, potentially protracted timescales and open to dispute.
Federation of Small Businesses: We accept that in some circumstances the introduction of statutory pre-application consultations by developers may be a sensible response to community concerns however it must be limited to the three categories outlined in the White Paper. Any future guidance encouraging pre-application must clearly set out that this is dependent upon the nature and scale of the proposed development. Otherwise, small scale commercial applications may be viewed in a dim light if they have not carried out proactive pre-application consultation. Whilst this may often be desirable it is simply not practical for many small businesses who cannot afford planning consultants or solicitors to guide them through this process. It is important to ensure that changes to the system take account of the variety of applicants.
Institute of Directors: There are an unreasonable amount of stipulations imposed on businesses with front loaded applications.
Mobile Operators Association ( MOA): The mobile operators in the UK have long had a process for undertaking pre-application consultation - as set out in the Ten Commitments to Best Siting Practice. While the operators do not sit easily within the three categories set out on pages 36 and 37 of the White Paper, the experience gained since the introduction of the Ten Commitments in 2001 may help the Executive to provide guidance to developers that fall within the three categories. We would be keen to be involved in the drafting of the proposed Community Consultation Planning Advice Note ( PAN) based on the operators' extensive experience of undertaking pre-application consultation with local communities and key stakeholders throughout the UK. The operators will continue to use the Ten Commitments, and the related 'site selection and planning model' when developing their networks, in order to fully engage with local communities on proposed developments in their area. The aim of the Ten Commitments is to ensure transparency in building mobile phone networks, to provide more information to the public and local planners and to boost the community's role in the siting of radio base stations. We will continue to implement the Ten Commitments in Scotland and across the UK.
Orange PCS Ltd: Orange attaches enormous importance to pre-application discussions with local planning officers in order to ensure that installations are sensitively sited. However, officers are not always available due to time pressures and when advice is provided it can sometimes be of uncertain status. A further problem is that planning officers sometimes require firm details to comment on which clearly removes the fundamental purpose of pre-application consultation.
RWE Npower plc: We very strongly support the principle of giving local people in particular the opportunity to make an input to development proposals at the pre-application stage. This is when there is most opportunity for members of the public to influence the design of the proposal and when changes to meet public suggestions and criticisms can be made at much less cost in time and money to the developer than later in the process. We would be pleased to participate in the process of developing the proposed guidance on pre-application consultation and to pilot the process on one or more of our developments if this would be helpful, given that many of our developments are subject to Electricity Act consent procedures as noted above. The pre-application consultation guidance will need to cater for a wide range of local circumstances, from deprived urban areas to the remotest rural areas. Particular attention should be given to providing guidance on ensuring adequate geographical and social coverage of such consultation exercises. If pre-application consultation procedures are to work satisfactorily, developers will need to have confidence that the consultation procedure they are following will be acceptable to the planning authority, and the authority will need to have confidence that the developer has fulfilled the requirements. The guidance will need to make recommendations to ensure this.
Scottish Environmental Services Association ( SESA): Engagement of communities for major waste management applications has been considered good practice by our Members for some time. Consequently, SESA is not opposed in principle to the introduction of a statutory requirement to engage in pre-application discussions. However, we are concerned that this may be too blunt an instrument. For example, it may not take into account the size of the facility as a small composting plant may need an Environmental Impact Assessment. Consequently, SESA sees merit in the development of a voluntary code of practice and encourage the Executive to consider this suggestion.
Scottish Power: The energy industry generally conforms to these proposals. Recording these consultations in a Pre-Application Consultation Report would be a useful document to all interested parties.
Scottish Rural Property & Business Association: We support a new statutory requirement of pre-application consultation for the types of applications listed in the White Paper. In many rural communities, such consultation already occurs, perhaps more so than in urban situations. To be credible, these consultations must be more than a "box ticking" exercise, and the guidance must be robust in this regard. Inclusion should mean more discussion between local planning authorities and land owners in their areas to discover their aspirations and concerns
Tarmac Ltd: Tarmac routinely undertakes preliminary consultation with local communities in respect of all significant proposals. The success of such consultations varies on a number of factors not least the existing function of the Community Council. In the case of minerals applications however the core decision will frequently require justification beyond the local environment. A search for resolution or mediation at this level is therefore unlikely to be appropriate.
UNITE Group plc: In terms of pre-application consultation, UNITE is aware of the importance of engaging with local communities early on in the development process. UNITE therefore notes the proposed introduction of a statutory requirement for pre-application consultation on large scale proposals and proposals where there is a departure from the development plan. UNITE is keen to reserve a position to consult on these matters.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): Regarding proposals for pre-application consultations, we consider that further details and definition are required as to how this proposal would work in practice. Further definition of 'major developments' is required. Similarly, further definition of larger-scale 'Bad Neighbours' is required. The White Paper proposes that where there are unresolved issues arising from pre-application consultations, these should be considered as part of the processing of the planning application by the planning authority. It is unclear as to how this would work in practice. If mediation is required, then who would undertake this?
WBB Minerals: Who determines what is a "significant departure from the development plan"? This could have fundamental flaws in terms of competition rights for similar competing developments, without an element of confidentiality. There is also a potential for parties to choose not to engage with a developer. What is the definition of "local people"? Further advice on this matter is needed. The requirement to provide a report of the pre-application consultation with their application is not a land use planning issue, nor should it be regarded as a material consideration. There may well be insurmountable difficulties in engaging with local communities.
Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC: In terms of pre-application consultation, Morrisons is aware of the importance of engaging with local communities early on in the development process. Morrisons therefore notes the proposed introduction of a statutory requirement for pre-application consultation on large scale proposals and proposals where there is a departure from the development plan. Morrisons is keen to reserve a position to consult on these matters.
Professional Organisations
RICS Scotland:RICS Scotland supports, in principle, the proposals for Statutory Requirements for Pre-Application Consultations. However, we do note that the definition of major development is not precise. We would welcome clearer definition.
RTPI Scotland: We are concerned that the planning authority appears to have no role until such time as an application is submitted, along with the report of the pre-application consultation. Under these circumstances the lack of guidance which the authority can provide to engagement between the community and the developer may lead to unrealistic expectations arising from these consultations. This section also makes no reference to pre-application discussions with the planning authority itself in the case of any application (not just the three categories for pre-application consultation). Even with a tighter plan let system, pre-application discussions will still be important, especially over design issues or where the applicant requires complex procedural guidance. The Institute favours pre-application discussions in principle and strongly recommends that there should be a statutory requirement of authorities to prepare guidance on pre-application discussions (including an indication of how much time might be allocated) and that an element of the standard planning application fee should be calculated for this service accordingly.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Drivers Jonas: Regarding proposals for pre-application consultations, we consider that further details and definition are required as to how this proposal would work in practice. Further definition of 'major developments' is required. Similarly, further definition of larger-scale 'Bad Neighbours' is required. The White Paper proposes that where there are unresolved issues arising from pre-application consultations, these should be considered as part of the processing of the planning application by the planning authority. It is unclear as to how this would work in practice. If mediation is required, then who would undertake this?
Drysdale, Robert: I think the requirement to formally involve the community at a pre-application stage will be fraught with difficulties, and I await sight of the draft PAN with considerable interest. The judgement as to whether a proposal is significantly out of accord with the development plan is an enormously difficult judgement to make and the same proposal can be judged very differently by different agencies with different agendas - and even neighbouring planning authorities can disagree with each other about such an issue. Indeed I believe that the requirement to make that judgement at the outset, before the proposal has even reached the stage of being ready for submission to the planning authority, would force undesirable and unfair prejudgements to be made about the acceptability of the proposal. It could also mean that some developments with a potentially high impact could avoid pre-application consultation because of unduly vague local plan policies - for example inappropriate high density housing development in an area covered by a "Housing and Compatible Uses" designation in the local plan. Instead I would suggest that the Executive lay down appropriate criteria which would allow a consistent judgement to be made in every case as to whether a proposal should be subject to pre-application consultation - for example housing developments larger than X units on previously undeveloped land or housing developments larger than Y units on brownfield land, housing developments which involve a high density, retail / business / industrial developments larger than Z square metres, etc. The development plan could then be used as a secondary check - for example, if a development clearly triggered the specified threshold but was also clearly in accord with the development plan, with all parties in agreement on that issue, the pre-application consultation process could be of a lesser scale and scope than for a proposal which was in clear breach of fundamental policy objectives.
GVA Grimley LLP: In terms of pre-application consultation, GVA Grimley is aware of the importance of engaging with local communities early on in the development process. GVA Grimley therefore notes the proposed introduction of a statutory requirement for pre-application consultation on large scale proposals and proposals where there is a departure from the development plan.
Ledingham Chalmers: Wider public involvement in the preparation of developments plans and in pre-application consultations is to be commended but should have been happening anyway as a matter of good practice. It is important that the public are comfortable with any new system and not only must that system be seen to deliver, it must deliver its promises.
Maclay, Murray & Spens: There is a real concern that some local views, whilst perhaps, genuinely held, may be based on a biased and/or misinformed view with no justifiable basis in planning terms and no real understanding of the proposal. We would therefore be concerned if an applicant was required to take all local views into account regardless of whether or not these had any justifiable basis in planning terms. Whilst the benefits of "front loading" the planning applications can be seen, is the process not at risk of being even more lengthy whilst agreement is reached with all parties?
MBM Planning & Development: Planning authorities should be required to enter into pre-application discussions with applicants and agents. Recent examples of planning authorities refusing to deal with any pre-application enquiries due to workload pressures and staffing issues only exaggerates the problems when applications are eventually submitted, as they then often have to be significantly altered or even appealed many months later.
Turley Associates: The proposal for a statutory requirement for pre-application consultations is supported. Such an approach is generally very effective at allowing developers to understand the concerns of the public, and potential conflicts and misunderstandings can often be resolved in the early stages of project development. It is therefore recommended that medium-scale as well as large-scale development should be subject to this provision, reflecting of best practice.
Warren Consultants: The White Paper proposes that if the planning authority is not satisfied with the applicant's level of engagement with the local community prior to submitting the planning application, it may refuse to register the application. It is important, however, that the applicant always has the opportunity to go to appeal and the adequacy of his engagement with the local community is not simply a decision for the local planning authority. Furthermore, whilst the White Paper does propose that applicants should have pre application discussions with local communities, there is no mention of pre application discussions with planners, which, although encouraged in PAN 40, is often discouraged by cash strapped local authorities. There may be merit in introducing a planning fee for pre application discussions to enable issues to be thrashed out as early as possible and identify information requirements with the planning authority obliged to provide that information within a set timescale
Academic Bodies
University of Edinburgh: The UoE supports the early engagement with local communities through statutory pre-application discussions, where appropriate. However, there should be further consultation on this matter and we suggest pre-application consultations should be channelled through appropriate representative groups, e.g. Community Councils in order to focus discussions whilst maintaining the opportunity for the wider local community to be involved in the planning process.
Community Councils
Charlestown, Limekilns & Pattiesmuir Community Council: Enhanced and early consultation for all stakeholders is an essential prerequisite of an improved planning process. However, there is a real danger that this could become an empty charade with little cognisance taken of issues raised. There must be an unequivocal requirement to explain how the concerns of consultees and objectors have been addressed or why they have been ignored. As far as consultation at the development plan stage is concerned, our concern is that there will be a tendency for people to object to almost everything because it is hard for them to consider things in the abstract. What is missing in the White Paper is any real detail of how all this consultation will work and how communities will be assured that their views matter and will be taken properly into account.
Currie Community Council: We agree that engagement with the community is needed prior to lodging a planning application, but proportionate to the scale of the development. We agree that developers should engage the community before lodging certain types of proposals.
Foulden, Mordington & Lamberton Community Council: The idea of involving local residents in the preplanning application process was to be commended and is long overdue.
Greengairs Community Council and Greengairs Environmental Forum: This process could either be very successful or a disaster, leading to an even greater loss of confidence, it should not be seen as a panacea for all the troubles of community/developer relationships. Our experience is that a Developer who is open and honest will have more success. Details and information provided to the public must be accurate with effective penalties for inaccurate or misleading information, this is an area where external adjudication/review would assist in promoting confidence. It is crucial that this part of the procedure is covered by a Scottish Executive best practice guide and that organisations representing the public, communities, and environmental interests, are included in deciding the content of this document. Finalised documentation for planning applications should be made available within the affected communities at night and over a weekend to allow for scrutiny and effective participation. Expert assistance from planning officials, SEPA, SNH etc., as relevant, would help in the understanding of drawings, graphs and written words that make up the documentation and would make for much more reasoned and informed participation. A copy of the Structure and Local Plans should be made available as should a list of Scottish Executive and planning system documents that would relate to the proposed plan. For planning applications that are likely to have an adverse impact on the local amenity and/or environment and/or natural or cultural heritage, 28 days for response is too short a timescale to allow for reasoned and informed public consideration. Getting it right at an early stage is definitely a desirable goal for all stakeholders but any changes requested during the scrutiny process by local planning officials must be advised to the consultees for consideration. This would ensure that planning technicalities, while relevant, do not undermine a successful developer/community consultation as a consequence of lack of information.
Hillhead Community Council: Although prior consultation is welcomed and in an ideal world would lead to better planning decisions, we need specifics in place to guarantee that this will be inclusive, impartial and accountable. Experience here and elsewhere is that would-be developers have lied to a community or misled a council (quotes examples where a sheltered housing development turned into a pub and another where some neighbours were told that the development was to a small old folk's home instead of 12 flats where formerly 3. Consultation with a community council has been alleged which had not in fact taken place: in one case no community council for the area existed! Even officers have been observed to state that conservation officers approved of a proposed development when the reverse was the case. Such confusion should not be possible. What safeguards will there be?
Merchiston Community Council: We welcome, subject to more detail, co-operation between local representative groups, such as Community Councils, and site operators/ developers
Milngavie Community Council: Pre-application consultation is useful and has been applied locally to telecoms mast applications. It must, however, be made clear that because an organisation or an individual has replied to such a consultation they do not have any further comments to make when the formal application is made.
Portobello Community Council (and Amenity Society): Instead of TPRA, "pre-application engagements" with the public in the preparation of planning applications are proposed. Who will make the final decisions in these engagements, who will represent an individual or a local community, and who will bear the costs? Will there be the same opportunity for submissions from objectors as is available at a Public Inquiry? Few people will feel able (or sufficiently interested) to be involved in these engagements and will react only after an application has been submitted, when it may be far too late. Also, how will the quality, thoroughness and validity of this consultation be tested, assessed or verified? If left to the applicant to report on this, then the system could be abused.
The Royal Burgh of St Andrews Community Council: The proposal that developers will be required to carry out pre-application engagement with communities in certain circumstances (departures, bad neighbours, proposals subject to EIA) do not appear to amount to anything more than a box-ticking exercise. There are no mechanisms to ensure that concerns of communities are actually acted upon which risks generating meaningless consultation exercises or worse just provide developers with information on likely objections so they may circumvent them. Meaningless or cynical consultation is as bad as no consultation at all, perhaps worse as it undermines confidence in all consultation processes, not just the planning system. There is a danger too that in an area subject to much development activity frequent consultation can lead to consultation fatigue, and even if honestly carried out still fail in its objective of engagement. Pre-application consultation might address community concerns if there is a credible possibility that an application will fail if those concerns are ignored. Thus it could perhaps work in conjunction with 'lack of consultation' as a basis of TPRA, but will be useless or counter-productive otherwise.
Tillicoultry Community Council: Pre-application consultation with the community in the area where the development is to take place is supported and should be mandatory. Currently, some developers do consult with the communities concerned but most do not. This has to be changed.
Trossachs Community Council: We believe that the statutory requirement for pre-application consultations will alleviate potential misunderstanding and so help maintain good community relations between applicant and neighbours.
Voluntary Organisations
Brethren Gospel Trusts: We concur with and support the proposals for major developments to be subject to pre- application consultations for the categories as set out. This is to be supported for national and major applications. A wider duty on developers is inconsistent with the proposals to place a duty on local planning authorities to consult with neighbours and other interested parties. We concur with the desirability of guidance but we are unclear as to why this would require primary legislation.
Cockburn Association: Consultation cannot just be a case of developers ticking a consultation 'yes' box on the planning application form. Developers must explain in their application how they have consulted with local communities. If there are opposing points of view between a developer and a local community, the developer will need to show how they have tried to resolve the matter.
Colinton Amenity Association: We welcome the requirement that developers should provide full information about their proposals before presenting applications to the local authority and the community. However, developers are likely to have spent many months in researching and preparing the necessary information. It is acceptable if this information is presented for the purpose of pre application discussions with the various parties, but not if it coincides with a formal planning application or an appeal. In the latter cases, this would only allow communities and other third parties 21 days to consider a mass of information that has taken months to prepare. Arrangements for adequate time for third parties to consider and respond to the implications of significant developments must be allowed. This is especially the case for appeals, which are now proposed to be based on written material submitted in response to the original application - we reiterate that third parties would have only 3 weeks to do this and this could preclude them from obtaining evidence to support their views.
The proposals for pre application consultations should include those cases that are likely to be controversial for local people, such as development on sensitive sites that are highly valued by the community and sites with complex underlying issues. There should also be greater use of development briefs not only for large sites, but also for smaller and complex sites that are prominent, for example in Conservation Areas; important listed buildings. Community Bodies should have the same opportunities of discussing particular planning cases directly with planning officials as are currently enjoyed by developers throughout the processing of their applications.
Edinburgh World Heritage: We do have concerns about a developer led pre consultation role prior to the submission of a development proposal and how the quality and process of this engagement and the outcomes will be measured.
Friends of the Earth Scotland: Fo ES welcomes, in principle, that a statutory duty will be placed on developers to carry out pre-application engagement with communities in certain circumstances (on departures, bad neighbours, proposals subject to EIA). However, there are no conditions to ensure that this duty becomes anything more than a box-ticking exercise by developers. The proposal includes no mechanisms to ensure that concerns of communities are actually acted upon so risks generating just meaningless consultation exercises. Experience in this area suggests that pre-application consultation is only effective in addressing community concerns if there is a real risk that permission will be refused if those concerns are ignored. Thus it would work well in tandem with TPRA, but be of little value otherwise.
Galloway Preservation Society: We see involvement of Galloway Preservation Society with the planning systems in development control. Galloway Preservation Society will comment/object to advertised developments and is ready to participate in consultations at an early stage of any development.
Greenhill and Church Hill Amenity Association: Truly greater "inclusiveness" (4.3.3) requires that third parties have the right to be informed of the outcome of pre-application consultations, and to respond to these.
Planning Aid Scotland: Clear guidance will be necessary for this process to be meaningful. It would be counterproductive if developers carried out an insincere or tokenistic consultation process merely to demonstrate compliance with a procedure.
Pollokshields Heritage: We strongly suggest that all developments in Conservation Areas and for listed buildings should be included as a fourth category of applications cited for 'enhanced scrutiny'
Portobello Campaign Against the Superstore: The proposal that developers have to consult with local communities would have more credence if this was backed up with some teeth other than the ability of planners to assess how relevant it is and to what depth this consultation has been taken. The threat that at the end of the day a third party could appeal the decision would make it more certain that developers do constructively engage with the community at an early stage and show how the community's concerns have been addressed. Our experience is that these already take place and often communities are frozen out of these preliminary talks and the 'deal' is stitched up before the application is lodged. Without free access to the planning authority's planners, it is impossible for communities to play their part in pre-application process. How are the three parties (developer, planning authority and local community) to interface? It is no good saying that you will leave this to individual councils because there are those which will fail to adequately consult their customers. And uncertainty in the minds of developers as how to approach communities in different areas of the country will not lead to efficient and effective consultation. Perhaps guidance will be introduced but when? Will sufficient time be given to allow for discussion, consultation and training on this new guidance before the legislation comes into force?
Scottish Civic Trust (and Civic Trust Network): Only addresses applications where there is a significant departure (or if an EIA). Many schemes might accord with the general provision of the plan, but in forma and content, be very significant indeed. Whilst guidance on pre-application discussion might be useful there should be a mechanism for a planning authority to insist on consultations. This also raises the issue of "consult with whom"? Guidance will be required. This could place an unreasonable demand on communities who may not be able to resource such involvement.
Scottish Consumer Council: We support proposals to create a statutory requirement for public participation in the early stages of the planning process. However, this in itself will be inadequate unless accompanied by guidance on how to secure effective public participation rather than tokenism. Even so, this will not be sufficient to ensure equality between first and third parties, as they do not place any statutory obligation on developers or planning authorities to demonstrate how individuals' views have been taken into consideration in the decision making process.
Scottish Renewables Forum : We would welcome clarification on the process of assessment the planning authority will undertake to assess whether appropriate consultation has been undertaken. We also note that it is stated that if the planning authority is not satisfied with the level of engagement or believes that the developer has not done sufficient to take account of local concerns, they may refuse to register the application. There is no explanation of how an applicant can dispute the planning authority's findings in such an instance. This may be seen as a charter for unreasonableness. If an authority does not want to deal with an application it can simply say that it is invalid and the applicant has no route for appeal or other scrutiny.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: This is welcome but will only be effective if there is a massive shift in culture and attitudes of both the public and developers. Pre-consultation should not be seen as a cure all and the scope of consultation will have to improve, moving beyond mere notification to active engagement. TPRA would create the necessary incentive to ensure developers engage with communities in a meaningful way.
Tain & Easter Ross Civic Trust: As a group we welcome the concept of increased community involvement but we are concerned at the apparent lack of mechanisms to make this happen. We are particularly anxious at proposals to increase pre-planning application discussions between developers and planning authorities on the new categories of Local and Major developments and worry fait accompli situations might arise before any community involvement stage. To combat this, we would wish to be included in a formal consultation procedure from the outset so our views, if any, can be heard and taken into account.
The Grange Association: A requirement for pre-application consultation is mentioned but not who is to be consulted. The paper refers to 'statutory consultees'. But how will developers assess the views of the public - through Community Councils, Amenity Groups such as our own, public meetings, public advertisement? How will the strength of public views in that consultation be regarded by the planning authority? Clarification of this proposal is required. The stated categories where there would be a statutory requirement to pre-consult should include major developments complying with the development plan but nevertheless having a major effect on the local area and its people. We make the same recommendation with regard to increased use of hearings.
Private Individuals
Anonymous: The document reiterates the need for the developer to engage with the community prior to submitting an application, and that the planning authority may refuse to register the application if the developer has not taken sufficient account of local concerns. This all sounds wonderful but nowhere does it state in the document that the developer has to change his plans because of local concerns - we are all familiar with the scenario of the developer who asks for planning permission for 40 houses, goes down to 30 and would have been content with 20. Public perception of consultation by a developer is that lip-service is being paid to a necessary stage in the planning process and there is nothing in this document that appears to change that perception. There is no onus on the developer to react to local concerns or rethink the scale or scope of a project because of them. The notion that a developer should consult the community before submitting an application and that the planning authority should pronounce on the degree of that consultation pre-supposes several things. The planners would have to be aware of the potential contentious issues before the application was submitted, which is possibly difficult in a busy department. The developer will understandably also have a tendency to gloss over and minimise potential impacts in order to achieve a favourable outcome. This then leaves the community, who would have the local knowledge to identify the impacts of the development. This presupposes a community which is organised (not always the case), has time, commitment and expertise. This might well be within the remit of the Community Council, with the possible appointment of a community councillor responsible for planning matters but, one would imagine training and support would have to be put in place (possibly by Planning Aid who are very well versed in this field and deserve all the funding they get.
Lee, David: With the present system, the public are entitled to make representations about an application to a planning authority but do not seem to be entitled to a meaningful response to any questions regarding that application. Hopefully, the introduction of pre-application discussion would resolve many such questions. However, the White Paper should introduce the requirement that applications be sufficiently detailed to answer most material questions and that planning officers and applicants have a duty to give quantitative answers to such questions. Since the White Paper recommends the removal of "outline planning permission" and rejects the idea of a 3 rd party Right of Appeal, it is critical that the mechanism of pre-application discussion be extended to be applicable to all 'Major' and 'Local' planning applications. This is necessary because of the limitation on detail that the development plan can offer. For example, the plan may indicate an area is allocated for 'housing'. In theory, an application for a 'Major' or 'Local' housing development at that location could be approved with no pre-application discussion, and no opportunity for the local community to present its views on the details of that application. Extending the mechanism to all applications will ensure there is always an opportunity to engage the community from the very start and most likely reduce problems and confrontation further along the course of an application. The planning system should also impose limitations on the completeness of an application prior to pre-application discussion and again prior to final determination; e.g. suitable description of proposals, completed environmental reports, third-party consultation reports etc. Details must also be given of the way planning conditions will be enforced and the consequences of failure to comply.
Turner, Barry: As regards pre-application discussions with developers, it is unclear who will be consulted; some kind of notification will be necessary. It might be considered that such consultation should extend beyond the limited categories identified, especially since where proposals conform with the development plan the devil is often in the detail. I'm not convinced that anything will come out of these discussions that would not come out of the existing post-application consultation but I suppose early discussion with developers must be a good thing (if they listen).
Politicians and Political Groups
Scottish National Party: With regard to public/community involvement, experience demonstrates that most communities become aware of contentious planning issues well down the process and are often engaged in "fire-fighting", accordingly we welcome pre application consultations but it is not clear what weight will be given to community submissions.
« Previous | Contents | Next »