« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Neighbour Notification responsibilities
Local Authorities
Aberdeen City Council: This is potentially a very large burden on local authorities and because of the requirement in general to notify more neighbours in built up areas this is likely to impact disproportionately on major urban authorities. The cost implications could be significant. Whilst supporting the desire to improve public engagement extending neighbour notification period will inevitably result in some slowing down of the process. The additional costs involved need to be recognised in the proposal increases in planning fees.
Aberdeenshire Council: We would wish to stress our concerns regarding the resource implications of neighbour notification which we believe to be inappropriately recommended for transfer to local authorities
Angus Council: The White Paper appears to have taken some account of previous comments by Angus Council by limiting notification to new site specific proposals rather than wider policy changes which had been suggested in earlier consultation documents. Nevertheless this will involve additional work and resources.
Argyll & Bute Council: The Council is not in favour of the proposal to neighbour notify neighbours and owners of site specific policies, proposals and allocations as this would have major resource/logistical implications for a large dispersed rural authority such as ours covered by a district wide plan. It is also considered that the proposal to transfer the responsibility for neighbour notification of applications to the Local Authority, but also the means of notification is fundamentally flawed, expensive, bureaucratic, time consuming and easily open to challenge. There remains distinct difficulties with large tracts of land in rural areas and how premises some miles from the site applies, the need to advertise foreshore as "vacant land" and the definition of "premises". The transfer of those powers in England have resulted in significant Ombudsman complaints which will eat into valuable staff resources and divert resources from application processing time which will affect performance. Neighbour notification should therefore remain the responsibility of the applicant, given that they ought to be in apposition to best identify their neighbours and a risk of a challenge to the consent should remain with those benefiting from the development
City of Edinburgh Council: Council has consistently supported the principle of the planning authority taking the duty of notifying neighbours as a contribution to improved public confidence and understanding in the system. However there are very substantial new resource implications. The Council proposes that the Scottish Executive considers a fee scheme that allows for increased charges based on the volume of notifications to be undertaken rather than on a flat-rate increase in the application fee. This would be a more realistic transfer of the costs currently borne by the applicant. Pilot exercises on Development Plan neighbour notification have revealed the potential for confusion with notification of specific development proposals and a generally misunderstanding or ignorance of development plans by those notified. Further work is required on detailed guidance to implement this proposal. The existing budget provision for development plan consultation exercises is insufficient to accommodate the costs of such notification.
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: This measure is not required as other proposals included in the White Paper would ensure greater public knowledge of the process. This measure would serve to seriously slow down the Development Plan process at a time where the Executive are wishing to speed it up. It would have significant resource implications for the Planning Authority and may undermine the Comhairle's ability to comply with deadlines and timetables that require to be adhered to as part of the new proposals in the White Paper. There is little evidence of public disquiet in the Western Isles over present neighbour notification procedures. It is considered that, for the Comhairle, the proposed change to making the Comhairle responsible for neighbour notifications would have significant resource implications and, overall, be of more detriment than good. This measure is therefore not supported.
Dumfries & Galloway Council: We welcome the proposals to give Councils responsibility for neighbour notification of planning applications.
Dundee City Council: The Council's position has been to accept the principle of these changes subject to the financial implications for the Council being fully assessed and addressed by the Executive. The Executive has yet to indicate how these initiatives are to be resourced by Councils and the City Council will wish to ensure that the changes to the Fees Regulations do not leave it at a financial disadvantage compared to more rural authorities where lower levels of notification are involved. A comprehensive review of the Fees Regulations as required. Whilst the Council supports the general principle of the transfer of responsibility for neighbour notification, the Council it intends in consultation with Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen Councils (its Development Quality Benchmarking Partners) to assess the practical and financial implications of the proposals and as necessary to make further representations to the Executive. No problem in principle with identification of land in Local Authority ownership however unclear if this also includes land in private ownership. May add to the complexity and length of time for plan preparation and may be difficult to keep up to date. The Council would also wish to ensure that the implementation of neighbour notification in relation to development plan proposals would not leave it a financial disadvantage.
East Ayrshire Council: The proposals in relation to both development plans and planning applications will impose significant new duties on the Council which will have substantial manpower, workload and cost implications. Additional staff will be required and the Council would expect that any additional financial costs will be fully underwritten by the Scottish Executive. The proposals will also open the Council up to legal challenge.
East Dunbartonshire Council: This proposal was expected and places additional onerous responsibilities on the planning authority that could have been best left with the applicant by being made much more prescriptive and punitive for failure. The commitment to increase fees that will enable Local Authorities to respond to this additional workload will have to proven. It is anticipated that in East Dunbartonshire between 2 and 3 additional staff will be required and that the total cost could be between £70,000 to £90,000 per annum. Requirement for neighbour notification of new proposals in plans is welcomed as a means of avoiding criticism that "nobody told us" but there is an additional workload component to this.
East Lothian Council: The transfer of responsibility for neighbour notification to planning authorities requires further detailed discussion regarding procedures and resources; for example it is essential that notification does not take place until the authority has registered the application as valid. It will be important that the Executive, when assessing the additional resources required by councils, take account of the duties to notify neighbours of proposals in development plans and of appeals against enforcement notices.
East Renfrewshire Council: It is accepted that this will ensure that those directly affected by proposals will be aware of these and be able to make representations. As such it plays a key role in eliminating the need for Third Party Rights of Appeal. Notwithstanding this, neighbour notifying those directly affected by Development Plan proposals could have significant resource implications and run contrary to achieving balanced and inclusive involvement.
Falkirk Council: While the Council is not against carrying out neighbour notification of planning applications as such, it would create a very substantial resource issue. One alternative could be for the applicant to provide the list of neighbours to be notified, along with the letters. The Council could then check these and send them out once the application was received and it was determined to be valid. The Council is still concerned that there are proposals to introduce neighbour notification on enforcement notices as it is a legal notice which could be contested. Informing third parties may infringe human rights. One proposal which the Council previously did not agree with was the requirement to notify owners, tenants and neighbours directly affected by policy changes in a development plan. While the principle is sound, it is considered that this would result in an increase in workload over the already extensive development plan consultation undertaken, and that it may be difficult to identify those "directly affected" in particular given the variation in types of proposals and their impact. Although this has been carried through to the white paper, the wording has changed slightly and the exact implications are unclear. It could also be argued that anyone affected by a site not proposed in the local plan, but where a developer/landowner has appealed against non-inclusion and put their case to a hearing/inquiry, should be notified of those sites as well. This would significantly increase the workload. Authorities may wish to advertise development plan proposals in the local press and even put up site notices on such sites in order to avoid any challenges from persons who feel that they are 'directly affected' but were not neighbour notified, for whatever reason.
Fife Council: The proposal in respect of the Local Development Plan is supported and reflects current Best Practice in Fife, this process having been piloted with Tay Coast LP Alteration and St Andrews & East Fife LP. Welcomed to raise local awareness (in line with pushing for early engagement in the development plan process). Direct notification to neighbours of appeals against enforcement notices. Modest increase in workload carried out by Development Services staff to send out appropriate notifications. In terms of applications this is supported and will remove possibility of developers failing to notify neighbours. Modest increase in workload carried out by Development Services staff to send out appropriate notifications
Glasgow City Council: Additional clarification would be welcomed on the neighbour notification proposals. Specifically, where a new development plan proposal has been neighbour notified, and representations made and possibly acted upon, would there be a further requirement to neighbour notify at the development application stage? Such an approach would appear to suggest a significant element of duplication in time and expense. For the Council's first City Plan, neighbour notification would have meant directly contacting some 74,549 neighbouring households, businesses, etc, directly affected by one or more development plan proposal. If all the necessary letters were sent by first class post, the approximate postage bill alone would have been around £22,000, not accounting for staff time. In addition, key addresses for registered delivery/hand delivery may have to be identified and arranged where receipt of delivery was seen as vital. Clarification is needed on whether further notification would be required in the event of any subsequent changes or modifications to the Plan's proposals. This process could be considered unnecessary duplication where there is extensive public consultation for the Development Plan and where the actual development application, when it comes forward, is subject to neighbour notification in any case. However, this would constitute only part of the notification exercise, as ownership details would also require to be established. The Council's existing property database (the Corporate Address Gazetteer ( CAG)) can only identify addresses for existing properties. Officers would need to conduct an additional detailed land survey where no development or property was registered. This would involve establishing individual site and land owners from official land registers. It should be noted that land ownership queries can be particularly complex and expensive (£4.00 for an Individual query). Given the potential number that would have been affected by the City Plan 1 proposals this bill could run into tens of thousands of pounds. Neighbour notification for development plan proposals, therefore, could prove extremely time consuming and costly for city authorities like Glasgow. Given the logistical implications of notification of new site-specific development proposals for Glasgow and the other cities, the SE should consider whether alternative means of notification would achieve their objectives. These might include detailing proposals in magazines or newspapers which are distributed free to all households in Glasgow such as the Glaswegian or Glasgow Magazine. A further major concern about changing neighbour notification procedures in this way is that the Council could be open to legal challenge in terms of the status of its development plan should it be proved that the Council did not fulfil its neighbour notification procedures properly. There is also a strong possibility that neighbour notification will lead to an increase in the volume of objections received resulting in slowing down the timetable for preparing the local development plan to the timescale published in the Development Plan Scheme. The implications of neighbour notification for development applications would be similar to that of the development plan but, notably, would entail an on-going cost rather than a periodic commitment. The cost to the City is estimated at around £364,839.. The proposal will lead to a significant management issue to ensure that all neighbours are notified appropriately and at the right times. The proposal would have other implications such as the re-training of staff to implement the scheme. Notification would have to be carried out within 5 working days after receipt of the application, and the system could lead to an increase in the number of cases going before the Ombudsman, due to administrative errors taking place because of the volume of notifications that will have to be undertaken for all applications. There would be a requirement to consider how amendments to applications would be dealt with -should these applications be withdrawn and resubmitted as fresh applications rather than extending the timescale for existing ones? Clarification is required from the SE on whether consents with conditions (such as details on design, etc) would have to be re-notified. The extension of time for neighbours to comment on applications up to three weeks reduces the timescale available for officers to deal with any significant objections raised, particularly when objections are made at the last minute. The Council previously supported this proposal on the condition that there was a corresponding change in the way that performance is monitored. The Council's previous concerns are reconfirmed. The Council would therefore support the establishment of a Joint Working Group with Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen City Councils to consider the full implications of the proposal for Scotland's cities.
Highland Council: Neighbour notification both of planning applications and development plan policies appear logical to ensure greater inclusiveness but do have significant logistical and financial implications. It is important that the Council lobby for this to be recognised in increases in planning fees. The detailed operation of such arrangements will be the subject of secondary legislation but this generally receives less scrutiny and it is almost inevitable that the fee uplift will be set across Scotland at a standard level. Highland Council is likely to be penalised because our costs are likely to be higher because of our geography and our Area delivery.
Inverclyde Council: The neighbour notification of enforcement cases is reasonable. In transferring neighbour notification to local authorities, the benefits in efficiency do not properly balance with the costs to the applicants. Of greater consideration should be getting the range and method of notification, including advertising and site notices, correct, rather than changing who actually serves the notices. The whole question of resourcing this requires careful examination.
Midlothian Council: Notification of site specific proposals in local development plans has major resource implications for Councils and would also likely lengthen the plan- making process. It will be especially onerous where a single authority-wide local development plan is being prepared, with potentially some thousands of notifications involved. There are likely to be difficulties in identifying the full ownership of land, especially as local development plans will normally involve extensive edge-of- town sites. Guidance is awaited on how best to avoid legal challenge from any owner, tenant or neighbour who has been omitted from the notification, perhaps by employing a "catch-all" advertisement or site notices.
In relation to applications - the Council has previously written to the Scottish Executive to ask what would happen in the event of a planning authority inadvertently failing to notify a notifiable neighbour. The Executive responded to say that they were not aware of any legal challenges against local planning authorities resulting from neighbour notification carried out by the authorities. The main concern raised by authorities at the earlier consultation related to the significantly increased administrative burden and strain on resources. This remains the position. In taking on this additional responsibility, Councils must be fully recompensed.
Moray Council: Notification is fraught with difficulty - affected 'neighbours' may include those on access routes to a site; and, crucially, the process risks raising the level of objections. But is does address the common complaint that people never know of a designation until it becomes a planning application. Fundamentally disagree. Existing neighbour notification procedures work well in Moray and the onus should remain with the applicant promoting the development. There are serious staffing and financial implications involved in placing responsibility for notification onto Local Authorities. There is no guidance given regarding increasing fees to reflect costs and whether or not this is feasible or realistic. It has already been identified that this change would require two additional full-time staff within the Development Control Section alone. It is unclear why it is considered that there would be increased public confidence if the Local Authority undertook neighbour notification. This will likely mean increased challenges to the process. The existing arrangements should continue or on alternative arrangement e.g., site notice and advertisement should be considered.
North Ayrshire Council: These significant new duties will have substantial resource implications for which additional funding must be identified and provided.
North Ayrshire Council (Chief Executive): These significant new duties will have substantial resource implications for which additional funding must be identified and provided.
North Lanarkshire Council: Neighbour Notification by the Local Authority should avoid many of the difficulties currently encountered. It is essential that the additional fees properly reflect the additional responsibility. Neighbour notification in enforcement cases is appropriate.
Perth & Kinross Council: For the Neighbour notification of site specific proposals contained in the Local Development Plan to be effective therefore in reducing objections at the stage of the planning application, notification must target as many of those affected by development as reasonably possible. The person most affected by a major proposal may not be a direct neighbour as currently defined in the development control process. If the aims of the new legislation are to be achieved and make the process more inclusive, more clarity is needed as to what constitutes a "neighbour" or an "affected party". In addition clarification is sought on what constitutes a "site specific" proposal; the proposed Perth Green Belt is a policy, but is site specific; who should be notified in this instance? It is estimated that there are over 400 site-specific proposals in the current local plans and that the planning application definition of neighbours, would result in excess of 12,000 notifications. This has significant resource implications not just in the act of notification but it must be anticipated that a significant number of those notified will then engage in the process. Additional workload will be generated and current staff resources are wholly inadequate to deal with this aspect of the proposed legislation. Neighbour notification of applications will offer the prospect of more accurate notification and allow it to be undertaken when planning application is complete and registered, so removing a flaw in the existing system which is of major public (and planning authority) concern. There are, however major resource implications associated with this new responsibility. Neighbour notification of enforcement action is also supported.
Renfrewshire Council: Support in principle. This proposal was expected to be in the White Paper and will give planning authorities full control of the neighbour notification process although it is not clear whether the developers will still be responsible for compiling the notification list. Planning authorities carrying out notification should overcome the current problems with disputes between developers and residents as to whether neighbour notification was correctly carried out. On the basis that additional fees will be provided to planning authorities this proposal can be accepted.
Scottish Borders Council: The establishment of a simple, robust procedure has the potential to remove a significant source of complaint about the current development control system. However the straightforward transfer of the existing procedure without adjustment would not be acceptable. The Scottish Executive should not underestimate the technical complexity of this procedure and the costs involved in transferring this requirement to local authorities. As these costs are currently borne by applicants, the costs to councils should be fully through an increase in planning fees. Clear and simplified definitions as to who constitutes a notifiable neighbour will be required if neighbour notification is to be carried out accurately and speedily by planning authorities on receipt of applications. If acceptable arrangements are not agreed this procedure is likely to result in a significant increase in complaints against planning authorities with the potential for legal challenges of decisions. Rather than simplifying and enhancing the system, the transfer of an ill-considered scheme of neighbour notification could have the opposite effect.
Shetland Islands Council's (interim response): We believe that the transfer of neighbour notification to local planning authorities is to be welcomed in principle. Whilst it will undoubtedly involve some additional work, our officers presently spend disproportionate amounts of time on trying to explain the procedures and resolving the complicated issues that can arise where neighbour notification has not been properly carried out. We also believe that the system needs overhauling and that it may be appropriate to introduce different types of notification for different scales or types of development. We believe that a very prominent site notice might suffice in some instances whereas a letter may be appropriate in others. Options should be available to suit a range of circumstances.
South Ayrshire Council: This will have a significant impact on staff and financial resources, although it is noted that the Scottish Executive accepts the need to increase application fees to reflect these higher costs. However, planning authorities will incur costs without any recompense from fees as a result of proposals to require neighbour notification for appeals against enforcement notice. The planning authority will serve the enforcement notice, but the appeal is submitted directly to the Scottish Executive.
South Lanarkshire Council: The transfer and extension of the neighbour notification procedure has been anticipated for sometime and while it will have significant resource implications, it is recognised it will go someway to addressing the criticism that is often levelled at this aspect of the process. Guidance over the extent of neighbour notification that applies to development plans is required in terms of what stage of the plan preparation would notification be appropriate (presumably at 'proposed plan' stage) and which neighbours would be notified e.g. all those within 4 metres of the site boundary.
West Dunbartonshire Council: There are clearly resource implications for local authorities undertaking neighbour notification but this proposal has been heralded for so long that it has now generally been accepted. As for neighbour notification of new site specific proposals in local development plans it is important that the extent of such notification is clarified as far as possible. For example, a proposal for a landfill site could lead to notification of very extensive numbers of people. It should not be possible for there to be a legal challenge to the plan because of a failure of notification.
West Lothian Council: These proposals are supported as it will improve the reliability of the function. However, early research has shown that this would involve a substantial workload and local authorities must, therefore, be given the power to charge for this service.
Other LA Organisations
COSLA: A number of planning authorities have made known to COSLA their concerns in having to take over responsibility for neighbour notifications, as they see this as a significant new burden in terms of time and staff resources. This is particularly an issue for rural authorities in terms of the need for on-site assessment of the neighbourhood to which the application applies, as well as the costs of mailing notification to all who are deemed to be 'neighbours' within the prescribed parameters. We are also aware of some sensitivity to the risk of having to respond to appeals through the Local Government Ombudsman, should a challenge be made of failure to notify properly. COSLA is aware that such issues have arisen in England and Wales and is seeking further information on the scale of the problems that this causes, as we would wish to see lessons learned from the English experience, should this issue have reached a level that significant impact could be forecast on Scottish local authority expenditure to deal with Ombudsman enquiries.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Defence Estates: Whilst Defence Estates is generally in favour of proposals to transfer responsibility for neighbour notification to planning authorities, it is cautious in regard to the implications of this additional responsibility on local authority resources. There is a risk that this could delay the registration of new planning applications that would be contrary to the overall move indicated in the White Paper towards efficiency.
Scottish Water: We do have some concerns about the resource implications for this and the potential for further delays that could arise. It may be necessary to develop performance standards such as time limits. We accept the need to raise application fees associated with this transfer of responsibility. However we would seek to ensure that we are not unduly penalised in complying with both our Consultation Code and the requirements for the statutory pre-application consultation. We would also wish the new system to protect applicants from having issued planning permissions challenged or overturned on the basis of flaws in the application of the neighbour notification process by the planning authorities.
The Development Industry
EDI Group Ltd: No changes are justified to Neighbour Notification as authorities are under enough pressure without further increasing their workload.
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): Understands that several planning authorities are very concerned about the resource implications of the neighbour notification proposals. Consider that if resources are not made available for these services to be carried out effectively, then there could be considerable delays and errors in the notification process. Such delays could increase the legal challenges of planning permission on the grounds that neighbour notification has been carried out inadequately. Consider that a statutory timeframe should be specified within which the neighbour notification procedures would require to be completed. Suggests a timeframe of 5 days from the submission of a planning application.
Homes for Scotland: No objection to the proposal that there should be neighbour notification of local development plans but we would request information on how it will work in practice. Planning Departments are already over burdened and adding responsibility for the additional administration in the preparation of notification certificates will increase the burden. Homes for Scotland members would be content to maintain the status quo as members are not persuaded that there is a strong case for the proposed change. To do otherwise will not only increase the local authority workload but we are also not persuaded that it will bring any added value. Homes for Scotland are particularly concerned that the transfer of responsibility could also result in another source of potential delay. As an alternative, we would be happy to engage in discussions with the Executive looking at how improvements to the present system can be achieved.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): Welcomed as this will have the inevitable knock on effect of engaging local people at an earlier stage in the planning process than generally happens at present.
Muir Group: Whilst not objecting to the proposed change to permit neighbour notification of local development plans clarification is required on how it will work in practice.
Manor Kingdom Group: No objection to the proposal that there should be neighbour notification of local development plans but request information on how it will work in practice. Planning Departments are already over burdened and adding responsibility for the additional administration in the preparation of notification certificates will increase the burden. Manor Kingdom would be content to maintain the status quo with regard to this. To do otherwise will not only increase the local authority workload but we are also not persuaded that it will bring any added value.
Persimmon Homes: This proposal mirrors the current position in England. However, we would question whether LPAs are suitably resourced to undertake this statutory requirement. The process is time consuming and delays could leave LAs exposed to potential claims.
The Buchanan Partnership: Whilst the Buchanan Partnership is generally in favour of proposals to transfer responsibility for neighbour notification to planning authorities, it is cautious in regard to the implications of this additional implication for local authority resources. The Buchanan Partnership would be concerned if this transfer led to a delay in the registration of new planning applications which would be contrary to the overall move indicated in the White Paper towards efficiency.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: The proposal to transfer the responsibility to the planning authority is welcome. However, this is a time consuming process and by its nature requires access to land ownership information. The White Paper is not clear on how this will work, whether an applicant will still be required to provide base information for the planning authority to use and further how the time involved is to be built into a process agreement.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: Walker Group has no objection to the proposal where responsibility for neighbour notification passes from the applicant to the planning authority, provided the application is allowed to be registered immediately and not delayed until such time as the planning authority get around to carrying out the notification. We have experienced significant delays in getting planning applications registered on the grounds that the planning authority was questioning the neighbour notification. Replacing a self-certification system, which allowed a planning authority the right to refuse to register applications on notification grounds, is supported.
Other Businesses
ASDA: It is essential that local planning authorities are given sufficient resources to undertake this task because otherwise this could lead to significant delays in the planning decision making process. It will be important that local authorities have a statutory requirement to carry out the notification within a specified period of receipt of the application. Local authorities should also be encouraged to consider outsourcing this activity and to delegate the responsibility to applicants in processing agreement cases.
CBI Scotland: Local authorities will require additional financial resources to undertake their new responsibilities, such as issuing neighbour notifications. Increased planning application fees are mentioned in the White Paper. There may be some justification for increased fees but they need to be kept within sensible and justifiable limits.
Crown Castle UKLTD: We support the increase of neighbour notification from 14 to 21 days and this may remove the practice of holding objections being made in certain instances. In terms of the mechanics of this process, where applicants carry out greater levels of public consultation, then this may require LPAs to extend their neighbour notification to more than the statutory requirement to mirror that undertaken at pre-application stage. Otherwise, parts of the community involved in the initial pre-application consultations undertaken by a developer may be removed from statutory notification on the actual planning application, raising public concerns about unfairness and lack of transparency to the disadvantage of the applicant. In terms of an increase in planning fees to cover such changes, we appreciate that resources and funding are clearly an important ingredient towards satisfactory or good local authority performance. However the Executive has already increased fees by 10% within the last year. We would hope that through greater concentration on encouraging or improving best management practice, better use of information technology, the caliber of officers and members, better and greater use of specialist consultants, delegated authority and committee cycles, together with changes to other parts of the development planning and control services, would free up sufficient resources within each authority so not to necessitate an increase in fees.
Mobile Operators Association ( MOA): If the transfer of responsibility of neighbour notification to local authorities is to be introduced, the Executive will need to ensure that planning authorities are adequately resourced to undertake this additional workload. The operators believe that the proposed increased planning fee to cover this additional burden may be justified. However, any such increase must be proportionate both to the additional work required and to the size of the proposed development. Increasing the timeframe for responding to neighbour notification from 14 to 21 days would not have a significant impact on the operators, and may help to increase the involvement of local communities in the planning consultation process. We would urge that this proposal is carefully considered before being implemented by legislation.
Scottish Chambers of Commerce: Whilst not objecting to the proposed change to permit neighbour notification of local development plans clarification is required on how it will work in practice. Also, if local authority planning departments are under resourced this could have implications.
Scottish Rural Property & Business Association: We are supportive of the requirement to notify owners, occupiers and neighbours of new site-specific proposals in local development plans. This should ensure that it is much easier for these people to get involved at the development plan stage, perhaps in a more objective way, when objections are not raised in response to a specific application by a specific developer. This should reduce the ability to raise objections later in the process.
The Scottish Coal Company Limited ( SCCL): The transfer of neighbour notification obligations to Planning Authorities gives rise to a slight concern in the event that it is not properly conducted and thus could potentially invalidate a planning application. We would expect to see measures introduced to ensure that applicants' interests are not compromised by the actions or inactions of planning authorities.
UNITE Group plc: Whilst UNITE is generally in favour of proposals to transfer responsibility for neighbour notification to planning authorities, it is cautious in regard to the implications of this additional responsibility on local authority resources. There is a risk that this could delay the registration of new planning applications which would be contrary to the overall move indicated in the White Paper towards efficiency.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): Understands that several planning authorities are very concerned about the resource implications of the neighbour notification proposals. Consider that if resources are not made available for these services to be carried out effectively, then there could be considerable delays and errors in the notification process. Such delays could increase the legal challenges of planning permission on the grounds that neighbour notification has been carried out inadequately. Consider that a statutory timeframe should be specified within which the neighbour notification procedures would require to be completed. Suggests a timeframe of 5 days from the submission of a planning application.
WBB Minerals: This will ensure proper notification of the local community. The timescale for responses should be statutory. Comments outside the 21 day period should be disregarded, including those from statutory consultees. This is the only sure way of speeding up the planning system. The increase in cost should not be disproportionate to the cost of the notification process.
Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC: Generally in favour of proposals to transfer responsibility for neighbour notification to planning authorities. However it is cautious in regard to the implications of this additional responsibility on local authority resources and its affect on the legal implications on decisions made where mistakes in neighbour notification have occurred. For instance there is a risk that this could delay the registration of new planning applications which would be contrary to the overall move indicated in the White Paper towards efficiency.
Professional Organisations
RIAS: The RIAS would support the proposals to transfer this system to Local Authorities. However, although architects recognise the necessity of making affected proprietors, neighbours and communities aware of applications and changes to development plans, we would question whether the existing process is appropriate. Perhaps a less rigorous procedure for making notifications might be considered.
RICS Scotland:RICS Scotland welcomes the proposal that neighbour notification be transferred to the responsibility of Local Authorities and we understand the corresponding increase in fees that this is likely to produce. However, we seek confirmation that the information required to facilitate neighbour notification will not form part of planning application forms resulting in a potential double cost for the applicant.
RTPI Scotland: We support the transfer of neighbour notification to planning authorities but note the significant cost which this will incur. We also note and support the intention to introduce neighbour notification for site specific proposals and local development plans and presume that this will not apply to strategic development plans and that site specific proposals and strategic development plans are no longer proposed. We would emphasise the need to encourage planning authorities not to use criteria based policies to avoid the need for neighbour notification of site specific proposals. We agree with the extension of neighbour notification to enforcement decisions.
The Law Society of Scotland: The Society notes the proposal that neighbour notification should become the responsibility of planning authorities. While the reasons for this proposal are understood, it is considered that this could seriously delay and potentially undermine the development control process. The Society can understand why the Scottish Executive are proposing that there should be formal notification to owners, occupiers and neighbours of new site specific proposals in a local development plan. The worry is that this obligation will prove to be costly and onerous, may delay the preparation of such plans, and non compliance may introduce legal defects into permissions
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Collar, Neil: In practice, the neighbour notification rules are difficult to implement and genuine mistakes do get made. The problem is that a failure to notify a party can result in the quashing of a decision. Could applicants be given the option of supplying local authorities with a list of the parties they consider should be notified? Consideration should also be given to adding neighbour notification to the list of orders, decisions and directions specified in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, section 237, so that any legal challenge would have to be submitted within 6 weeks of the grant of planning permission thereby giving applicants some degree of certainty. It is equally important that local authorities be given sufficient resources to ensure that there are enough staff with proper training to undertake the neighbour notification process. The neighbour notification proposals for new site specific proposals in local development plans are also welcome. This should also include proposed modifications to draft plans. Neighbour notification in enforcement notice appeals is also a sensible proposal.
Drivers Jonas: Understands that several planning authorities are very concerned about the resource implications of the neighbour notification proposals. Consider that if resources are not made available for these services to be carried out effectively, then there could be considerable delays and errors in the notification process. Such delays could increase the legal challenges of planning permission on the grounds that neighbour notification has been carried out inadequately. Consider that a statutory timeframe should be specified within which the neighbour notification procedures would require to be completed. Suggests a timeframe of 5 days from the submission of a planning application.
GVA Grimley LLP: Whilst generally in favour of proposals to transfer responsibility for neighbour notification to planning authorities, GVA Grimley is cautious in regard to the implications of this additional responsibility on local authority resources. There is a risk that this could delay the registration of new planning applications which would be contrary to the overall move indicated in the White Paper towards efficiency.
MBM Planning & Development: The current system of neighbour notification for planning applications should continue to be undertaken by the applicant or agent. If planning authorities undertake this work, then it is uncertain when the notification will take place and how long after the submission of the application it will be before the notification is completed. If this results in the delay to the registration of the application then this would be unacceptable. A handful of authorities currently insist on recorded delivery post as a method for issuing neighbour notifications. This could be extended as best practice for all applicants and agents and then prevent the additional burden that is being proposed on planning authorities across Scotland.
Paull & Williamson: We understand why it is proposed to notify owners, occupiers and neighbours of new site specific proposals in local development plans but we are concerned that this may undo the good work in speeding up the plan making process and just cause delay. In relation to applications, we understand why it is proposed to switch responsibility from the applicant to the planning authority but again, it would be unfortunate if the effect of this is to slow down the development control process at a time when measures are now being taken to speed it up.
Roberts, GM: Welcome proposed neighbour notification of enforcement decisions: Another area for improvement would be to publicise applications for Certificates of Existing Lawful Use, or at least a requirement for Community Councils to be consulted; as local knowledge is often invaluable in these circumstances.
Academic Bodies
University of Edinburgh: The UoE supports the proposal to make local authorities responsible for neighbour notification but would stress this may only be achievable with increased resources and with no detriment to the timescale for determining applications.
Community Councils
Balmerino, Kilmany and Logie Community Council: We suggest that the time allowed to respond to neighbour notification be extended to 28 days rather than the 21 days proposed. At present the deadline is 14 days.
Broughton & Pilrig Community Council: We understand the reasons why it is suggested neighbourhood notifications be undertaken by planning authorities, not least the concern that developers are seen as failing in their current duty in this respect. We are concerned that should the duty be transferred, planning departments will be swamped with process at the cost of time and resources that would better be spent in promoting the culture change envisaged in the proposed reform. In short, enforce the current rules more effectively.
Broughty Ferry Community Council: We agree with these proposals. A mechanism needs to be in place to renotify community councils when changes are made to an application. In the past we have objected to applications but have not been notified of changes even though neighbours have.
Currie Community Council: There is a limited period during which people can comment or object. It is frequently the case that Environmental or Traffic Impact Assessments and proposals to meet open space requirements are not submitted within this period which means that local people, who have a knowledge of their area, are unable to respond adequately within the statutory period. This is unjust and represents an abuse of the system. Planning authorities must be in possession of this and other significant information, including clear location plans (some organisations provide little more than grid references) before advertising applications. By so doing, they should be able to reduce their own input chasing up developers for incomplete information. The onus should be on the developer to provide all information with his application. We have no objection to the Local Authority taking on the function of notifying local people of a planning proposal. This will be appreciated by applicants who currently have to carry out this duty. We also agree that a 21-day response period is more realistic than 14 days, as it will be helpful for those who happen to be on holiday.
Dunfermline and Coast Association of Community Councils: An additional problem is when a Council discovers that a developer has not included certain items in their plans. The Council then draws this deficiency to the developer advising that if this is not corrected then a further Neighbourhood Notification Notice will be required. However if the Council, for whatever reason, does not issue this notice and the Developer goes ahead with the development, confusion leading to a reduction in trust arises. Such action does not place the Council in a position of trust and will do nothing to advance the democratic process. The White Paper does not address this problem. The Scottish Executive should bring forward proposals for Local Authorities and the wider public to consider.
Earn Community Council: Issuing of neighbour notices by the planning authority is a constructive step. In the past, some of the notices prepared by developers have been quite inaccurate and misleading. The increase in time limit for response (to 21 days) is useful.
Garioch Area Forum of Community Councils: We believe that under the existing system, neighbour notice of a proposed development should be increased from 14 days to 28 days in order to allow sufficient time for neighbours to view the plans and to make their submissions. The statutory pre-application consultations which are proposed in the White Paper may meet our worries in this respect.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: The proposals to transfer responsibility for neighbour notification from developers to Local authorities and to extend the consultation period is another welcome advance, as are proposals to extend neighbour notification to owners, occupiers and neighbours of new site-specific proposals in local development plans. Where planning enforcement is concerned, the reforms aimed at informing neighbours of appeals against enforcement action are welcomed, however members would like to see such notification extended to community councils.
Milngavie Community Council: It would help if any notification included an outline plan drawing and not just an intimation 'that plans can be inspected at ...' which might be some miles away. (See 5.3.3).
Pitlochry & Moulin Community Council: We do not understand why it is necessary to change the Neighbour Notification scheme and make it the responsibility of the Local Authority. The onus should surely be on the applicant to inform those people, adjacent to any development, of the proposed changes. This means that any costs related to the application is borne by the applicant and not the local council tax payers as is now being proposed!
Portobello Community Council (and Amenity Society): It is a good move for planning authorities to undertake neighbour notification, including that for site specific proposals in local development plans, and of enforcement decisions
Strathblane Community Council: Local Authorities to be responsible for neighbour notification will ensure good practice, we would also wish to make it clear that this should include cross border notifications.
Tillicoultry Community Council: The proposal that the planning authority should carry out all neighbour notifications will be much more efficient than an individual applying for planning permission having to notify the neighbours, often without knowing whom to notify.
Voluntary Organisations
Brethren Gospel Trusts: We support the proposal to require local planning authorities to formally consult with neighbours and to include notification of enforcement decisions.
Cockburn Association: Requests that local authorities receive extra funding to deal with neighbourhood notifications. We also wish to raise the issue of liability should local authorities fail to deliver such notices. Who would be legally responsible - the developer or local authority?
Garden History Society: We welcome the decision to transfer responsibility for neighbourhood notification to local authorities, and the extension of the response time from 14 to 21 days, assisting smaller organisations with limited staff resources to prepare competent responses.
Gatehouse Development Initiative: I am aware from local examples that current practice can go awry. Consequently, planners must have knowledge that the neighbours have received their copies of the application. They should be sent out by the Planning Department by recorded delivery.
Ferryhill Heritage Society: It is unclear who will pay for neighbourhood notification if the is to be done by officials. This facility should not be paid for by raising council tax. Suggest that planning application fees must be raised to cover the costs.
Peebles Civic Society: We disagree with the planning authority becoming responsible for neighbour notification. This would be a significant drain upon limited planning authority resources which could be more professionally and usefully employed.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: Again this is welcome but must move beyond notification. A high degree of innovation will be necessary and it must be remembered that effective consultation is costly and resource intensive.
The Grange Association: We welcome the proposal that local authorities should be responsible for neighbour notification (as well as public advertisement) and recommend that major revisions/alterations to submitted and subsequently approved plans should also be notified/advertised. The discretion by planning officers to decide whether such changes require further notification or a new revised application has, in our experience, sometimes led to contention and a loss of confidence in the system.
Voluntary Organisations
Portobello Campaign against the Superstore: Welcomes transfer of responsibility to the planning authority and notes that too often developer's notification has been lost in the post.
Scottish Renewables Forum : We would ask the Scottish Executive to note that the transfer of neighbour notification from applicant to LPA will require a transfer of responsibility to ensure that the process has been correctly carried out. We would suggest that in these circumstances that 'neighbour notification' carried out by an LPA should not be subject to a legal challenge. Given that, and because developers will have to do this in terms of demonstrating proper consultation, the LPA should audit its notification procedures. It is important that the PAN on community engagement deals with this particular issue.
Private Individuals
Anonymous: As far as Section 36 applications are concerned, it seems quite unjustifiable that there is no neighbourhood notification requirement for renewable energy applications which will undoubtedly have a major impact on the amenity of neighbours and the local environment.
Graham, Bob: There should be a much longer period for members of the public to comment on planning applications and this includes ensuring that there is proper publicity in the first place.
Oliver, Jean: Neighbours should only be notified once an application has been processed. At present, applicants seem to notify neighbours to gauge opposition before withdrawing the application to address the issues raised by neighbours. This should not be allowed to go on ad infinitum. ANY neighbour likely to be affected should be notified e.g. a frontager responsible for the road over which the applicant intends to gain access. Site notices should be required to ensure everyone knows of the proposed development, which might affect a public right of way for example. It should be a statutory requirement to advertise ALL planning applications in the press.
Piggins, JM Dr: While I welcome the increase in time for responding from 14 to 21 days, I believe that this change is inadequate to achieve the objective of allowing "community groups sufficient time to prepare their responses". Community councils, for example, mostly meet monthly. Therefore, even the 21-day period may fall entirely between meetings. An increase to 6 weeks would not be unreasonable, and the additional 3-week delay would hardly be significant in the context of planning a development that will be there for (almost) ever.
Wall, J Mrs: There is a need to ensure that Planning Authorities undertake neighbour notification and do it properly.
« Previous | Contents | Next »