The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Last year's casework

Volume of cases

The Directorate processed 1322 cases to decision in the course of the year, an increase of approximately 8.5% from the previous year. In addition, work was undertaken on a further 168 cases of which 106 were eventually withdrawn and 62 were temporarily suspended at the request of the parties as at 31 March 2008.

Table 1: Volume of cases handled by DPEA 2007-2008

* Including appeal and non-appeal cases.

** Including 166 wayleave cases associated with the Beauly to Denny powerline inquiry.

The total number of cases sisted/suspended as at 31 March 2008 was 62.

Types of cases received

The number of overall cases received within the Directorate was less than last year. Last year's figures did however include 166 wayleave applications relating to the Beauly to Denny public local inquiry. Whilst there was a small increase in the number of planning appeals received, the number of enforcement notice appeals fell slightly.

Table 2: Types of cases received

* Includes marine shellfish farms; electricity and energy proposals; wayleaves; flood prevention schemes and pollution control and prevention cases.

The pie chart below illustrates the various types of case which have been dealt with during the year. Percentages shown are approximate and have been rounded up.

Table 3a: Trend of planning permission appeals received during the last 5 years

The number of planning permission appeal cases continues to increase as demonstrated in the graph below although this is at a reduced rate. There were also some notable changes in the types of development involved. Single house developments increased from 207 to 265 and major retail cases from 12 to 21. Appeals relating to windfarm development also increased from 9 to 14 whilst telecommunication appeals decreased from 67 (100 in 2005-2006) to 19.

Table 3b: Breakdown of planning permission appeals

Method of determination and success rates

Table 4A shows the method of determination of cases and the success rates for different categories. Success in these tables is generally defined as a favourable outcome for the appellant or applicant, in that an appeal is allowed, an application is permitted, or an order is confirmed. The Directorate continued to see an upward trend in cases being handled through to determination (1314 up from 1201). The overall success rate was 38% (39% in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007). Table 4B indicates the success rates for delegated appeals within individual planning authorities. Although the overall success rate was 38% in the last year, there is marked variation across the country.

Table 4a: Success rates by method of determination and type of case

* Includes planning permission, minerals planning permission, planning enforcement, listed building enforcement and certificate of appropriate alternative development appeals.

** Includes wayleaves and windfarm proposals.

*** Includes administrative and no jurisdiction decisions.

Table 4b: Success rates for delegated appeals by Planning Authority 2007-2008

* Includes administration and no jurisdiction decisions.

Major inquiries

In addition to many small-scale but individually important cases, the following were the subject of major or controversial planning appeal and call-in inquiries during the year:

• Residential developments at Linglie Road, Selkirk; Tay Rope Works, Dundee; Cumberland Avenue, Helensburgh; Auchentoshan Estate, Clydebank; and Harbour Place, Dalgety Bay.
• Windfarm developments St John's Hill, Stonehaven; Invercassley, Sutherland; Clochnahill, Stonehaven; Rossie, Cupar; Tillyrie Farm, Cupar; Achany Estate, Lairg; Merranblo, Orkney; Fallago Rig, Borders; Blackcraig Hill, New Galloway; and Langhope Rig, West of Ashkirk.
• Retail or mixed use developments at Dores Road, Inverness; Pennyland Farm, Thurso; and Thurso Auction Mart, Thurso.
• Beauly to Denny power line.
• Concrete, block tar and recycling plant at Cowdenhill Quarry, Banknock.
• Poultry breeding unit at St Mary's Road, Cupar.
• Development of a waste water treatment works at Bullwood Quarry, Dunoon.
• Extraction of coal at Muir Dean, Crossgates.

In addition, arrangements were progressed for an inquiry for a proposed village at Forrestmill, Clackmannanshire, mixed use development at Beith Street, Partick, a pre-inquiry meeting took place for the Trump International Golf Resort at the Menie Estate, Balmedie and arrangements were commenced for a pre-inquiry meeting for the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road Scheme.

Local plans

A breakdown of local plan inquiries for 2007-2008 together with the total workload is shown below. Although Table 2 indicates that four local plans were received in 2007-2008, the inquiries into a further five commenced before 1 April 2007 and continued into this reporting period. The total workload in days has increased from 1,262 days in 2006-2007 to 1,668 days in 2007-2008. For 2008-2009, the indications are that planning authorities again expect a very large proportion of the Directorate's resources to be available for commitment to a programme of local plan inquiries. These demands must be balanced against the workload arising from planning appeals, planning call-ins and the wide range of other essential casework detailed in Table 4A. We have been asked to supply, at this stage, Reporters for five inquiries that are expected to start in the year 2008-2009.

Table 5: Local Plan Inquiries

Claims for award of expenses

During this year 129 claims for awards of expenses were made, 4 less than in the previous year (133). The overall success rate was 24% compared to 25% last year. The objective tests for deciding whether the behaviour of any party has been unreasonable and thus has led to unnecessary expense remain those set out in SODD Circular 6/1990.

Table 6: Expenses claims

Court of Session challenges

The number of Court of Session challenges this year was slightly lower than in previous years. We have continued to meet the target that no more than 1% of all delegated appeals, as determined by reporters, should be the subject either of successful Court challenge or undefended if challenged.

Table 7: Court of Session Challenges

« Previous | Contents | Next »