Accelerating home-building in Scotland: Summary of consultation responses

Option 3: Reduce procedural time and costs for SME developers

Question 4: Should we bring forward legislation to amend the development hierarchy, to enable us to introduce more streamlined planning processes on planning applications for smaller sites, as outlined in option 3? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 80 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is provided in Table 9.

Many respondents highlighted the external factors that influence whether amending the development hierarchy would result in a streamlining of the planning process for SMEs. These factors included proportionality, what is requested from SMEs pre-application and whether there was accompanying guidance. Some said more information/evidence was required before a change to the hierarchy was needed.

Respondents that said ‘yes’, highlighted that amending the hierarchy could mean that applications from SMEs were appropriately proportionate and effectively fast-tracked. They cited the cost and effort of the various submission requirements accompanying planning applications and felt that changes to the hierarchy could mean that SME applications were streamlined. However, a small number of those supporting the change still stated that they required more information on what the changes to the hierarchy would mean in practice.

Of those that said ‘no’ to changing the hierarchy, the most commonly cited reason was because of the potential of weakening of safeguards and scrutiny of developments based on site size. Another felt that building new homes is more important than changes to the hierarchy. Some felt that the current system allows for proportionality in dealing with smaller applications in its current format.

Of those that were ‘unsure’, there was a sense that small does not always mean uncomplicated. Some had other ideas as to how proportionality could be achieved, such as through changing practice rather than policy e.g. standardised conditions, validation requirements for smaller applications and upfront derisking of brownfield sites. Many cited the need for better guidance on this issue in any case.

Question 4a) How many categories should be defined by the development hierarchy, and what size of development should these cover? For example, four categories, that define major, medium, small and very small developments.

A total of 41 respondents answered this open question and provided comment.

Suggestions included three categories, four categories and six categories, with proposed categories covering a range of development sizes. Respondents highlighted that by having small and very small categories, the requirements for these developments can be lightened to streamline the process.

A number of respondents referred to the need to balance complexity with proportionality. Several respondents suggested that the number of units was less important than the type of development, and specific categories should be made for affordable developments or brownfield development or urban and rural areas.

Some respondents felt there was no need for change, and that the case for change had not been adequately made. Some highlighted that creating more categories could create unintended pinch points.

Question 4b) What are your views on, and do you have any evidence relevant to whether creating more categories in the development hierarchy might have an overall effect of speeding up or slowing down build-out of housing?

A total of 43 respondents answered this open question and provided comment.

Overall, most respondents highlighted that they have no evidence that increasing the number of categories in the development hierarchy would help speed up the build-out of housing. Respondents views were broadly split between those who believe it would speed up delivery, those who believe it is unlikely to do so, and those who consider there is no evidence to support either position.

Some respondents highlighted that creating more categories would increase workload on local planning authorities. Some also asked for clear requirements and incentivised fiscal benefits for local planning authorities. Some respondents considered that additional categories could influence delivery outcomes.

Question 4c) What are your views on whether we should review and rationalise policy requirements for smaller housing sites, or introduce a new rules based policy for smaller housing sites?

A total of 52 respondents answered this open question and provided comment.

Many respondents agreed that policy requirements should be reviewed and rationalised, and believed that the approach could enable faster delivery. A few respondents supported a new rules based policy for smaller housing. A number of respondents also supported a hybrid approach of both options proposed. A few respondents opposed both propositions, believing that it would have no impact.

Some respondents highlighted the need for greater clarity, including planning guidance, if the proposals were to be implemented. Many respondents called for a site-specific approach, reflecting varying geographical and market conditions, and noted that delays often occur due to the lengthy decision-making process, leading some to ask for more powers for local planning authorities to enable faster delivery.

Some respondents highlighted that the proposal would be contradictory to national planning policies such as National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), which already have frameworks in place, and that it would act as an additional hurdle in an already complex decision-making process.

Question 4d) Do you think that further advice on planning application information requirements would support faster delivery of housing on smaller sites? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 69 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is provided in Table 10.

Most respondents highlighted that clear guidance would provide developers and decision makers with greater clarity and certainty, supporting efficient decision making. They noted that further guidance would help developers choose which sites to invest in, effectively incentivising sites for development.

Some respondents highlighted that support such as pre-application advice already exists but is not used effectively. Some also note that additional supplementary guidance exists alongside NPF4 but is difficult to find and access due to the volume of material.

Some respondents noted that there should be equality, and that site size should not be a determining factor. A few respondents asked for a legal and/or system amendment instead of an amendment specifically for small sites, noting that this would be unable to overcome the structural barriers that exist. A few also highlighted that this would not have any impact on faster delivery.

Question 4e) Do you think there are any further options that creating more categories in the development hierarchy might open up, further to those outlined in option 3? Yes/ No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 59 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is provided in Table 11.

Many respondents highlighted the same options as outlined in Option 3 with a focus on having more proportionate validation requirements.

Many respondents who answered ‘yes’ suggested that additional hierarchy categories could enable faster processing for smaller sites, with a more proportionate level of engagement and greater flexibility in the timing of information requirements. A few respondents suggested that more categories could help distinguish between brownfield and greenfield sites and rural and urban areas as to focus on different approaches for sites facing different viability issues.

Of the respondents that answered ‘no’ and ‘unsure’, many had concerns about adding unnecessary complexity to the hierarchy categories and increasing administrative burden on planning authorities. Some of the respondents did agree that simplifying processes and reducing unnecessary requirements would be of great benefit, however it was felt that this should be explored through the current system or non-legislative changes before additional structural changes to the hierarchy.

Question 4f) Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer.

There were 62 responses to this question. A breakdown of responses by respondent category is provided in Table 12.

Of those respondents who answered ‘yes’, the majority suggested that SME housebuilders would benefit from reduction in front-end costs and increase reliability of site delivery. It was noted that SME housebuilders face relatively high exposure to pre-development costs and uncertainty therefore streamlining of processes and proportionate information requirements can reduce front-end costs and improve viability of sites.

Of the respondents that answered ‘no’ and ‘unsure’, many had concerns about the impact of potentially removing or reducing environmental and place-making requirements to faster streamline applications and that the loss of rigorous assessment may offset any perceived benefits.

Some respondents who answered ‘no’ and ‘unsure’ felt that the potential changes in hierarchy would need to align with the scale and type of SME developments otherwise it would add complexity and potentially additional barriers. It was also highlighted that the main constraints for SME housebuilders, such as financial availability, market conditions and infrastructure costs, were beyond the scope of any proposed changes to the planning system.