« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5. CONTENT OF APPLICATIONS AND VALIDATION
Application forms
5.1 With regard to application forms, the 1997 Act allows Scottish Ministers to specify a standard planning application form or forms. Work on standard application forms is being taken forward through the ePlanning Programme, in developing e-forms for electronic submission of planning applications. Until that work reaches a conclusion, there will be no statutory requirement for standard application forms and applicants will be expected to use forms provided by the planning authorities, as at present.
Content of applications for detailed planning permission
5.2 Regulation 11 sets out what is proposed to be the basic information constituting a valid application for detailed planning permission. This draft regulation does not elaborate beyond the current requirements for a description of the development, along with plans and drawings necessary to describe the proposal. There is further specification, however, in relation to the location plan.
5.3 We have considered a number of options, and possible combinations of approaches, to help front-load the application process and clarify the requirements for a valid application (the 1997 Act does not contain powers allowing Ministers to delegate to the planning authority the discretion to decide what information constitutes a valid application). These options are:
a) Prescribing detailed plans and drawings
We considered drafting more detailed statutory requirements for the plans and drawings to accompany planning applications, for example:
- Location plan - at a scale of 1:1250 or 1:2500 (to allow flexibility depending on the scale and location of the proposal). It must identify the land necessary to carry out the development, including access arrangements, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings.
- Site Plan - scale of 1:200 or 1:500. This should show:
a) The direction of North;
b) The proposed development in relation to the site boundaries and other existing buildings on the site, with written dimensions including those to the boundaries;
c) All the buildings, roads and footpaths on land adjoining the site including access arrangements;
d) The extent and type of any hard surfacing;
e) Boundary treatment including walls or fencing where this is proposed.
- Existing and proposed elevations (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should:
a) show the proposed works in relation to what is already there;
b) show all sides of the proposal;
c) indicate, where possible, the proposed building materials and the style, materials and finish of windows and doors;
d) include blank elevations (if only to show that this is in fact the case);
e) where a proposed elevation adjoins another building or is in close proximity, the drawings should clearly show the relationship between the buildings, and detail the positions of the openings on each property.
- Existing and proposed floor plans (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should:
a) explain the proposal in detail;
b) show where existing buildings or walls are to be demolished;
c) show details of the existing building(s) as well as those for the proposed development;
d) show new buildings in context with adjacent buildings (including property numbers where applicable).
- Existing and proposed site sections and finished floor and site levels (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) which should:
a) show a cross section(s) through the proposed building(s);
b) where a proposal involves a change in ground levels, show both existing and finished levels to include details of foundations and eaves and how encroachment onto adjoining land is to be avoided;
c) include full information to demonstrate how proposed buildings relate to existing site levels and neighbouring development;
d) show existing site levels and finished floor levels (with levels related to a fixed datum point off site), and also show the proposals in relation to adjoining buildings (unless, in the case of development of an existing house, the levels are evident from floor plans and elevations).
- Roof plans (at a scale of 1:50 or 1:100) to show the shape of the roof and specifying details such as the roofing material, vents and their location.
There was, however, concern that to specify such requirements in legislation might, in some cases, generate far more detailed information than was necessary to determine the application. An alternative may have been to specify different statutory requirements for plans and drawings for different types of application. However, in addition to making the system more complex, it might create misunderstandings where the specific statutory requirements fell short of the information needed to determine the application.
b) Requiring additional assessments
We considered identifying types of case which would require particular types of additional information, such as flood risk assessments, transport assessments, retail impact assessments, and to specify the content of the assessments which should accompany the application.
While such an approach is intuitively appealing, trying to capture the range of developments and circumstances in which particular assessments would be applicable is problematic. Inevitably, it is possible to think of various examples of developments not caught by a particular set of criteria, and while it might be useful to identify a number of common cases to which additional requirements might apply, this could generate confusion about what may or may not be required in cases outwith those covered by legislation. Specifying the required content of the assessments is equally difficult, given the range of variables which may need to be analysed in a variety of circumstances.
As with the plans and drawings, we concluded that preparing large amounts of detailed legislation trying to identify particular developments and criteria in which additional informational requirements might apply, would complicate the system. It would also be likely to produce disputes about whether a particular case required additional information as a statutory minimum and what that information should be in order for the application to be valid.
c) Stopping the processing clock
We considered allowing a period within which the planning authority, having received a valid application (i.e. one that complied with the statutory requirements), could request the further additional information and stipulate that the time period for making a decision would not include the time taken to submit that information.
This would not appear to be an improvement on the existing system in terms of delays in starting processing while additional information is submitted by the applicant, then evaluated by the planning authority and then possibly leading to further information being required 4. It would also mean that the applicant would not be able to challenge a planning authority's request for further information by recourse to their right of appeal on the grounds of non-determination, which is tied to when the time period for determination has elapsed. Also, such an arrangement would potentially result in three different processes - applications with processing agreements, applications with requests for further information prior to processing and those where a request for further information was issued after the time period mentioned at the start of this paragraph.
5.4 We have concluded that producing a statutory procedure which can effectively provide for the content of every possible planning application is overly complex and that none of options a)-c) above provide an effective solution.
5.5 The intention therefore is that the draft regulations remain fairly widely drawn in this regard and that guidance will provide examples on the sorts of plans and drawings which could be required for various types of development, drawing on the points raised in option a) above. In due course, standard application forms could also incorporate prompts for applicants to consider the need for further assessments to accompany applications, and direct them to relevant planning guidance. The aim is to give applicants and planning authorities a clear steer on what should be provided in support of applications, without being tied to, or misled by, rigid, prescriptive requirements.
Q17: Do respondents consider the approach to the content of planning applications to be appropriate or are any of the other options in paragraph 5.3 preferable?
Q18: What other measures could help to ensure that applications are supported by adequate information at the start of the planning process whilst still encouraging efficiency in the development management system?
Content of applications for Planning Permission in Principle
5.6 Part 4 above discusses the changes from outline planning permission ( OPP) to planning permission in principle ( PPP). The basic premise, that an application can be made for something less than detailed planning permission remains. However, draft regulation 12 requires more information to support an application for PPP than is currently required for OPP.
5.7 This means that simply drawing a red line around a site and seeking permission in principle for "housing" or "industrial development" would no longer be sufficient. Where detail is not included in the proposals, applicants for PPP would, in future, have to provide information describing what the proposed development will be like, approximate locations of buildings, routes and open spaces, as well as a design and access statement (see Part 6). This is in the interests of transparency for the public and to ensure that planning authorities are not being asked to consider proposals in the absence of essential information, which simply means delay later in the process as they require that information to be provided. An up to date development plan should also provide an indication of what development is acceptable in principle. We do not want to encourage speculative applications for PPP for proposals which depart from development plans.
5.8 Regulation 15(1) allows that within one month of receiving an application for PPP the planning authority can request that further details of the proposal should be provided. By virtue of regulation 29(6), the time period for determining the application does not include any time between these further details being requested and their receipt by the planning authority. Regulation 15(2) specifies that a request for further detail can relate to the siting, design or external appearance of any building to which the application relates, or the means of access to such buildings, or the landscaping of the site in respect of which the application was made. Regulation 28 contains the general power for planning authorities to request further information on planning applications. Sub-paragraph (2) of that regulation indicates that the planning authority can make a request for further information on the matters in regulation 15(2) after 1 month only if they have requested details on such a matter in accordance with regulation 15(1).
Q19: Do respondents consider that the draft regulations on the content of applications for Planning Permission in Principle are pitched at an appropriate level of information?
Applications for approval of matters specified in conditions
5.9 Regulation 14 specifies the requirements for applications for approval of matters specified in conditions. These replace the requirements for applications for reserved matters in relation to OPP (see Part 4 above). The provision on the content of such applications has been amended slightly to make clear that plans and drawings will be required in certain circumstances.
5.10 Regulation 14 also includes requirements for applications made in relation to an approval, consent or agreement required by a condition attached to certain planning permissions other than PPP. These other planning permissions relate to development which is listed in Schedules 1 and column 1 of Schedule 2 to the EIA Regulations. This is to ensure that the requirements of the EIA Directive 5 are implemented in relation to multi-stage consents where necessary.
5.11 Legislation came into force in November 2007 to apply the requirements of the EIA Directive to reserved matters applications in the existing planning system. Scottish Planning Circular 8/2007: The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, contains further information. Regulation 14 of the DMR goes beyond the equivalent of reserved matters and extends to conditions requiring approval, consent or agreement attached to full planning permissions. This is in recognition of the fact that such approval could also be construed as part of a multi-stage consent under the terms of the Directive and may therefore require to be subject to its terms. Similarly, we will give further consideration as to whether any future changes to legislation may be required in relation to conditions determined following reviews of mineral permissions.
Validation
5.12 At present there is some variation in what planning authorities consider to be a valid application. Some consider that the submission of the statutory requirements in articles 3-6 of the GDPO shall amount to a valid application, allowing the process to start (i.e. the 2 month statutory period for determining applications - other than in cases requiring EIA). Other authorities consider the application to be valid only once all the information they deem necessary to determine it has been received, including various assessments such as transport assessments or retail impact assessments.
5.13 The DMR are intended to make clear that where the information specified in regulations 11-14 is submitted, an application is valid. At that stage the application should be neighbour notified (regulation 22), entered on the list of applications (regulation 24) and the planning register (regulation 20), and any necessary advertising (regulation 23) undertaken. The provisions on neighbour notification, advertising applications and registers contain certain time limits within which information needs to be issued or entered to ensure that information is available when publicity measures are initiated. Planning authorities should coordinate these activities as far as possible to have a readily identifiable period for representations to be made.
5.14 The time period for determining an application starts upon receipt of the last piece of information necessary to meet the aforementioned statutory requirements (except in cases where EIA is required, in which case the 4 month period starts once an environmental statement is submitted).
5.15 This means that where additional information is required - such as retail impact assessments or transport assessments - and is only requested once the application is submitted, the time period for a decision will have commenced while that information is being prepared. This emphasises the need for parties to engage in pre-application discussions to identify informational requirements on more complex cases. In particular, this highlights the value of entering into processing agreements on major developments (see Part 3) in order to set out requirements for supporting information, time periods for submission and agreeing an overall timescale for the determination of the application. It is our intention in future to assess planning authority performance on major developments with processing agreements against the agreed period for determination set out in such agreements, rather than the 2 month or proposed 4 month period.
5.16 Additional elements of a valid application include the proposed requirement for certain planning applications (see Part 6) to be accompanied by a statement setting out the design rationale behind the development and how issues relating to access for disabled people has been addressed (regulation 16). A number of other applications, including all applications for major development, will also require a pre-application consultation report (regulation 4).
5.17 Where design and access statements and/or pre-application consultation reports are submitted, these need to be checked to make sure the necessary statutory requirements on form and content have been complied with. This should be an administrative check to make sure the statutory requirements have been met. It should not focus on an evaluation of whether the applicant has followed appropriate design and access principles or whether they could have addressed more of the concerns expressed in pre-application consultation in their submitted proposals. These issues are for consideration as part of the determination of the application, not the validation process.
5.18 The validation process should therefore be treated primarily as an administrative check that the information required by statute has been included.
Q20: Do respondents consider that the requirements on content of applications are sufficiently clear to allow validation to be a relatively straightforward administrative check?
« Previous | Contents | Next »