Question 1

In order to improve the operation of the public local inquiry process should we be focussing on the time taken to process the appeal or called-in application; the cost, level of certainty about process; and the need to make it easier for the public to be involved, or are there other important matters to be addressed?

Question 2

Should public local inquiries into planning proposals be re-named "planning inquiries"?

Question 3

Should the right of an appellant or planning authority to a planning appeal inquiry or hearing be further qualified? If so, do you have a preference for Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3? Alternatively, do you have other suggestions that might be effective in achieving this objective?

Question 4

Where an appeal is lodged against non-determination, should the planning authority be required to indicate whether they would have granted or refused the application within, say, 2 weeks of the appeal being lodged?

Question 5

Should incomplete appeals be rejected and returned to the appellant?

Question 6

Should the present maximum period for production of the full statement of case be reduced from 8 weeks to 4 weeks from the issue of relevant notice?

Question 7

Are there other ways of shortening the essential pre-inquiry stages that could be as, or more, effective?

Question 8

Should all parties to a planning inquiry who intend to lead oral evidence be required to register their intention to do so by a specified date; and also to disclose their case in advance on the same structured and consistent basis?

Question 9

Do you subscribe to the view that the pre-inquiry process set by the Inquiries Procedure Rules does not allow sufficient time for proper preparation? If so, why?

Question 10

Once statements of case have been lodged should the Scottish Ministers give more explicit guidance, even if no pre-inquiry meeting is held, on the essential issues that they wish addressed in evidence to the inquiry?

Question 11

Should the Scottish Ministers indicate the material that must be considered by the appellant or applicant and the planning authority in order to identify areas of agreement and disagreement and be lodged as inquiry documents in order for the planning inquiry to start as programmed?

Question 12

Should the Scottish Ministers set a time limit on sisted appeals, so that these expire if the case is not brought to planning inquiry within 6 months of the date on which processing first stopped?

Question 13

Should the Scottish Ministers exercise their powers to recover their own costs and the costs of others where an appeal party fails to proceed, or an appeal is withdrawn, once the planning inquiry arrangements have been made?

Question 14

Should preliminary argument be ruled out at the opening of a planning inquiry?

Question 15

Should time at the planning inquiry be programmed more rigorously in advance by reporters, and parties held to that programme witness by witness?

Question 16

Do you consider that it is necessary for the Scottish Ministers explicitly to set a more inquisitorial role for reporters?

Question 17

Should hearings practice be imported to planning inquiries when it represents the most effective means of determining the matters in dispute? Does this enhanced role for the hearings process suggest that statutory procedure rules are required?

Question 18

Should the existing Inquiries Procedure Rules be amended to make it clear that the scope to request that a reporter takes account of new material after the planning inquiry has closed is strictly limited to a change in the provisions of the development plan?

Question 19

Do you consider that the hearings format represents a suitable means of examining objections to strategic development plans? If not, what other model do you suggest?

Question 20

Do you agree that the process of development planning would be improved by requiring planning authorities to reduce the volume of objections through negotiation and mediation before calling a local plan inquiry; by adopting the hearing format as the norm for all local plan inquiries; and by applying other relevant improvements in practice contained in this consultation. Do you have any other suggestions for ways in which the process might be improved?

Question 21

Should inquiries into planning appeals and called-in applications be dealt with separately from inquiries that are arranged to hear objections to local plans and from the public examination of objections to strategic and local development plans?

Question 22

We would welcome views on other options not covered by this paper that could help to make public local inquiries less adversarial but allow them to remain just as robust as the means of taking decisions on major planning proposals.