Planning performance and fees: consultation analysis

8. Consolidated Impact Assessment

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 The consultation sets out a consolidated impact assessment and consideration of the proposals on Island Authorities and poses a series of questions to address these issues.

8.2 Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA)

Q53. Do you have any comments on the BRIA?

8.2.1 The consultation asked if respondents had any comments on the BRIA. There were 11 comments although some related to individual applications rather than the planning performance and fees policy. Relevant responses are summarised below.

• Business: Of the six responses from businesses:
  • several in the minerals industry offered the following response: "There is no apparent BRIA to support this consultation - the paragraph included in the consultation is inadequate to constitute an impact assessment."
  • one energy business responded "As a regulated business, our costs are ultimately recovered from electricity consumers across GB and any increases to our operational costs, such as an increase in planning fees, will ultimately be borne by the GB consumer. Therefore, any increase in fees needs to be proportionate, evidence based and clearly justified. This is not taken into consideration as part of the BRIA."
• Civil Society: Of the five civil society responses, comments included:
  • "The BRIA considers only the cost of the headline increase in fees. It does not consider the additional difficulties that would arise from introducing fees for new items and of the consequent increase of complexity in the system. It should do."

8.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA)

8.3.1 A draft EQIA was published in advance of Stage 3 of the Planning Bill and did not provide any direct evidence on matters pertaining to performance or fees. The Scottish Government aims to use this consultation as a means to explore any potential equality impacts.

Q54. Do you agree with our conclusion that a full EQIA is not required?

8.3.2 The consultation asked if respondents agreed with the conclusion that a full EQIA is not required. The table below shows that the majority or respondents did not answer the question. Of those who did, there was substantial support for the conclusion that a full EQIA is not required. Support was from all the major groups

Do you agree with our conclusion that a full EQIA is not required?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2		27
Civil Society	8	4	16
Development Industry	3		9
Policy and Planning	13	1	26
Total	26	5	78
% of Respondents Answering Question	84	16

8.3.3 There were 12 comments on whether or not a full EQIA is required which are summarised below.

Agree: Full EQIA Not Required

• Civil Society: of the four civil society responses, comments included:
  • "Such an assessment should be carried out, particularly in relation to residential developments, to ensure that no such impact occurs. Such assessments are particularly relevant in the matter of "affordable" housing."
• Policy and Planning: Of the three policy and planning responses, comments included:
  • "Yes, but you should wholly disregard the proposal to charge for paper applications as that has an equality impact on areas and persons in areas with poor broadband and some sectors of society who are not IT savvy."
  • "Conclusion appears robust."

Disagree: Full EQIA is Required

• Civil Society: of the four civil society responses, comments include:
  • "One or more of the proposals relates to the way in which authorities and the public will communicate. It would therefore be appropriate to consider if there are any equalities implications arising from these."
  • "The increased complexity of the system is likely to impact most upon people who have the least access to advice or resources to deal with the planning system. I suggest that people with protected characteristics are likely to be disproportionately represented in the group most affected. I consider therefore that further investigation is required in terms of impact upon equalities."
• Policy and Planning: one respondent does not agree with the conclusion and feels that a full EQIA Is expected.

Q55. Do you have any comments on the EQIA?

8.3.4 There were 5 further comments on the EQIA from civil society respondents, but they were suggesting that applications should be subject to EQIA rather than the planning performance and fee policy.

8.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

8.4.1 The Planning Performance and Fee Regimes are not intended to be used to promote or discourage certain types of development and fees should only seek to recover the costs of the service provided. Therefore, the Scottish Government does not envisage the proposed changes having any direct environmental impacts.

Q56. Do you agree with our conclusion that a full SEA is not required?

8.4.2 The consultation sought views on the conclusion that a full SEA is not required. The table shows that the majority (81%) of respondents answering the question agreed with the conclusion. Business, development industry and policy and planning respondents all supported the conclusion, but civil society was evenly split on the conclusion that a full SEA is not required.

Do you agree with our conclusion that a full SEA is not required?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	3		26
Civil Society	6	6	16
Development Industry	3		9
Policy and Planning	13		27
Total	25	6	78
% of Respondents Answering Question	81	19

8.5 There were 12 comments on whether or not a full SEA is required, but as with other aspects of the impact assessment, some of the comments related more to individual applications (e.g. EIA) rather than to the planning performance and fee policy (e.g. SEA). Relevant responses are summarised below.

Agree: Full SEA Not Required

• Policy and Planning: both respondents accept the conclusions presented.

Disagree: Full SEA is Required

• Civil Society: of the six civil society responses, comments included:
  • "The logic in many of the fee structures that larger developments should be charged proportionately less than smaller developments on a per unit basis should be examined. Larger developments which might be expected to have cumulatively greater impacts, and therefore require resource to assess and manage, even with some economies of scale."

Did Not Answer Closed Question

• Policy and Planning: one respondent notes that a SEA pre-screening determination under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 was made to this effect in January 2020.

8.5 Children's Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA)

8.5.1 A draft CRWIA was published in advance of Stage 3 of the Planning Bill and did not provide any direct evidence on matters pertaining to performance or fees. The Scottish Government aims to use this consultation as a means to explore any potential impacts on children's rights.

Q57. Do you agree with our conclusion that a full CRWIA is not required?

8.5.2 The consultation sought views on the conclusion that a CRWIA is not required. The table shows that the majority (83%) of respondents answering the question agreed with the conclusion. All groups tend to support the conclusion.

Do you agree with our conclusion that a full CRWIA is not required?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2		27
Civil Society	8	4	16
Development Industry	3		9
Policy and Planning	12	1	27
Total	25	5	79
% of Respondents Answering Question	83	17

8.5.3 There were 10 comments on whether a full CRWIA is required, although a few related to individual applications rather than the planning performance and fee policy. Relevant responses are summarised below.

Agree: Full CRWIA Not Required

• Business: one respondent states that they are not sure they understand the question.
• Policy and Planning: two respondents state that they support the conclusion.

Disagree: Full CRWIA is Required

• Civil Society: one respondent made the same point as made under EQIA. "The increased complexity of the system is likely to impact most upon people who have the least access to advice or resources to deal with the planning system….I consider therefore that further investigation is required in terms of impact upon children's rights and wellbeing."

8.6 Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment

8.6.1 Scottish Government recognises that the public sector is key to delivering a fairer Scotland and this new duty is intended to help make sure that the sector takes full account of socio-economic disadvantage when key decisions are being made.

Q58. Do you agree with out conclusion that a full Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is not required?

8.6.2 The consultation sought views on whether respondents agreed with the conclusion that a full Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is not required. The majority of respondents did not answer this question, but of those who did, the table below shows a substantial majority (76%) agreed with the conclusion. There was support from business, development industry and policy and planning respondents with civil society respondents evenly split regarding the conclusion.

Do you agree with our conclusion that a full Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is not required?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	6	6	16
Development Industry	3		9
Policy and Planning	12	1	27
Total	22	7	80
% of Respondents Answering Question	76	24

8.6.3 There were 10 comments on whether or not a full Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is required and these are summarised below.

Agree: Full Fairer Scotland Duty assessment Not Required

• Civil Society: one respondent agrees with the conclusion and believes that it is covered by the NPF outcomes.
• Policy and Planning: two respondents state that they support the conclusion.

Disagree: Full Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is Required

• Civil Society: of the six civil society responses, comments include:
  • "Fairness should be transparent to all to allay concerns."
  • "Our own research on public experiences of the planning system identified a number of issues around inequality. The revision of the fee and application structure may be an opportune moment to test the Fairer Scotland approach."
  • "Developers and planning authorities should take into account any means for alleviating poor socio-economic status within their area, including strategic working to lower fuel poverty."

Not Answered Closed Question

• Business: one respondent stated they do not understand what a Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is.

8.7 Islands Proofing

8.7.1 During the Places, People and Planning consultation the Scottish Government identified two issues which would affect Island Authorities: Proposal 17 Investing in a better service; and Proposal 18 Performance. No island-specific recommendations were made in relation to either issue.

Q59. Do you have any comments which relate to the impact of our proposals on the Islands?

8.7.2 The consultation asked if respondents had any comments which relate to the impact of the proposals on islands. There were 8 comments on the impact of the proposals on the islands which are summarised below.

• Business: one respondent believes the planning system should encourage, not discourage, new industry to the islands.
• Civil Society: opinions differ between those that think the islands should come under the same control and those that argue the work involved in dealing with planning applications for developments in the Islands is likely to be less than for applications for the mainland.
• Development Industry: one respondent believes what is proposed will restrict developments on the Islands.
• Policy and Planning: the two respondents disagree with one stating it should be the same process as it could introduce complications, while the other notes that the current performance reporting process is time consuming, resource intensive and impacts significantly on the resource and capacity of smaller planning teams where staffing is needed to deal with front line services.