Planning applications: key agency rapid planning audits

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 The Programme for Government 2025-26 Building the Best Future for Scotland recognises the role of planning at the heart of economic growth and commits to a series of actions to boost planning capacity and reduce barriers to delivery. One of those commitments is to “undertake rapid audits of planning teams in each of the key agencies and work with them to reduce complexity, cost and speed up processes”.

1.2 I have been appointed by the Scottish Government as Lead Reviewer to gather evidence from agencies and stakeholders and make recommendations for areas for targeted action. Whilst I have been supported by secretariat from Scottish Government officials, my recommendations are based on my independent assessment of the evidence gathered. My CV is attached at Annex 1 for information.

1.3 I would wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the small but effective Secretariat within the Scottish Government who have provided practical assistance in this work. Their facilitation of this work has been invaluable to me.

1.4 As Lead Reviewer I have been asked to focus on the planning application process only and the role of the five key agencies with the most involvement in Scottish planning applications:

• Historic Environment Scotland
• NatureScot
• Scottish Environment Protection Agency
• Scottish Water
• Transport Scotland

1.5 It is vital to recognise and acknowledge that, important though they are, the planning roles of Agencies are only a part of a much wider range of functions carried out by them. It was valuable for me to read the respective most recent annual reviews or annual reports of all five Agencies. The wide range of their functions is clear from those documents and it is notable from them that the place of planning has to be seen in the wider contextual landscape in which they operate.

Agency roles and responsibilities

1.6 The five Key Agencies all play essential but distinct roles in Scotland’s planning system, with shared responsibilities centred on providing specialist advice to planning authorities, contributing to Environmental Impact Assessment processes, and supporting the implementation of national planning policy. All act as statutory consultees and engage at various stages of development management, typically from pre-application through to post-consent conditions. Their work collectively ensures that development is informed by evidence on natural heritage, cultural assets, infrastructure capacity, environmental protection, and transport network impacts.

1.7 NatureScot (NS) provides advice on natural heritage impacts through pre-application engagement, consultation responses, Environmental Impact Assessments, Habitats’ Regulations Appraisals and Section 36/37 energy casework. Their distinct contribution lies in its statutory Habitats’ Regulations Appraisals role, and the specialist focus on biodiversity, protected areas and Agri-Environment Climate Scheme casework.

1.8 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) offers statutory advice on development affecting listed buildings, scheduled monuments and historic assets. It also determines scheduled monument consent and undertakes enforcement for unauthorised works, while producing national policy and best-practice guidance such as the Managing Change series. These heritage-specific regulatory and advisory functions are unique to HES.

1.9 Scottish Water (SW) acts as a statutory consultee on planning applications to advise on water supply and wastewater capacity. Its distinctive role includes confirming infrastructure capacity, providing asset heat-map data for planning, and supporting strategic programmes such as Green Freeports.

1.10 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) provides independent environmental advice across the full planning cycle, from pre-application through conditions and appeals. It offers Environmental Impact Assessment scoping, publishes national flood maps, and works with Scottish Government on guidance and strategic initiatives. SEPA’s unique responsibilities include flood-risk mapping, pollution and emissions expertise, and an integrated consultation framework across multiple regulatory regimes.

1.11 Transport Scotland (TS) advises on developments affecting the trunk road network and other national transport assets. It assesses transport impacts, audits transport assessments for major energy and infrastructure proposals, and contributes to Development Plans. Its distinct role focusses on protecting the operational efficiency and safety of the national transport network and providing specialised transport-impact assessments.

Methods of working

1.12 The intention in this Review was to start a conversion about systems and procedures in the context of a range of aspirations on planning improvement-

• Enhance high quality planning decision making
• Improve public services under PSR (Public Service Reform)
• Ensure effective and efficient use of public and private resources
• Ensure high level of responsiveness of Agencies both in strategic planning and in cases raised with them
• Utilise skills of agency staff (specialised and generalist) to best effect
• Utilise AI and digital processes and services to best effect
• Ensure continuous improvement of services
• Enhance joint working and accountability for the services provided.

1.13 In that context, I have focussed on three recurring themes – that of improving speed, reducing complexity and enhancing shared goals driving towards ensuring high quality planning decision making. These themes are an end in themselves, but I recognise more widely the importance of maintaining confidence in the planning system and maximising the use of available capacity.

1.14 One aspect of that, in the drive towards high quality planning decision making, relates to the desirability of reducing the instances of decisions ultimately ending in the Courts for resolution. The point often made to me was that a disproportionate diversion of resource can occur if that happens, addressing the priorities of others. Planning decisions are best made at the most local level appropriate. Systems should be designed to ensure, as far as possible, that decisions are legally sound. Not only is this important in itself, the spending of precious time and resource in the law courts impedes the ability of those involved to secure these outcomes.

1.15 Delivering change in the planning system is nevertheless highly challenging. Land is precious and is a finite resource. Demands on land are many and various. They are often hard to reconcile. High level policy aspirations are needed but ultimately all planning is local. It directly impacts on our citizens. Reconciling people, place and amenity is complex.

1.16 I recognise too that, though the focus in this Review is on the Agencies, the ultimate local planning decision makers are the local planning authorities in Scotland – 32 Councils and 2 national park authorities. This is important for three reasons in particular. Firstly, that local Councils are democratically and politically responsible for planning and planning policy in their areas. That accountability is of central importance to an effective planning system. Secondly, notwithstanding my consideration of whether agency roles might be strengthened, there can only be one planning decision making authority. Most commonly this will be the local council (or park authority if exercising relevant planning functions), though it could be Scottish Ministers (for example on call-in). Either way, there is one decision maker and Agencies can only feed in to that decision making. That clarity of function and responsibility is not to be lost (nor lost sight of). The corollary of that is that, whatever their expertise and however strongly they may feel, the views of Agencies in any one decision may not hold sway. Each of the Agencies understand, agreed and readily accept that.

1.17 Thirdly, I consider it to be a strength in the system that it is Councils (through elected members) who balance competing policy considerations as applied to the facts in decision making. That balancing exercise (at times seeking to reconcile policy tensions that are irreconcilable) is the art of planning. Agencies are entitled – or even obliged – to focus on matters within their own remit but they should not intrude unduly in that balancing exercise across policy areas not their own. This can lead to perceptions about being unduly cautious or narrow-minded in their approaches.

1.18 In that context, it is important to record that I believe that the system is generally working well and that the aim should be to address pinch points to improve existing processes even more. In particular, as I set out in this Report, the information obtained from Agencies suggests in fact that the type and timings of engagement stand at a high level. Though I consider how best to reduce the numbers of “holding” objections (which are a cause of frustration to all who are committed to improving speed of decision making), the evidence is that very few outright objections are ultimately maintained. The figures are very low indeed – in the most recent data, 2% by NS, 1% by SEPA and none by SW.

1.19 Of those maintained (and where they go to appeal to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA)), very few require resolution at Hearings let alone full public inquiries. The days of holding public inquiries running for many weeks in draughty village halls are, by and large, gone.

1.20 I should also record that, while the information from Agencies suggests that processes by them are in place, guidance is in place and checklists are in place, these are not fully effective. Engagement with them with inadequate information is a recurring and common theme.

Casework/response rates summary

1.21 Information on response rates on consultation over the past 5 years was sought in this Review. The information provided (based on the data submitted in July 2025) is as follows.

NatureScot

1.22 Over the past five financial years, NatureScot’s average response times for development management consultations have ranged from 17 to just over 21 days. Response times increased from 17.32 days in 2020/21 to a peak of 21.34 days in 2022/23, before improving to 20.10 days in 2023/24 and 18.87 days in 2024/25.

Historic Environment Scotland (HES)

1.23 Historic Environment Scotland’s most recent 12-month data show average response times of 17.4 days for planning, 17.9 days for Conservation Area Consent, 37.1 days for EIAR consultations, and 16.4 days for Listed Building Consent. In 2024/25, HES met statutory or internal timescales for 89.9% of planning responses, 88.1% of Conservation Area Consent cases, and 97.8% of both EIAR and Listed Building Consent consultations. HES operates to standard internal deadlines of 14 to 21 days, with a 35-day target for EIA-related energy consents.

Scottish Water

1.24 Scottish Water responds to consultations within an internal Service Level Agreement of 10 working days. Over the past period, 97.2% of all consultations were responded to within this deadline, with an average response time of 5 working days. No additional data was provided.

SEPA

1.25 SEPA’s average response time over the past 12 months was 16 days. While annual average response times are not available for the full five-year period, data shows that SEPA met statutory timescales for 76% of cases in 2022/23, 72% in 2023/24, and 86% in 2024/25. SEPA attributes recent improvements to a new planning casework system and the adoption of a standard 21-day response timeframe across planning authorities, resulting in a 14% increase in on-time responses.

Transport Scotland

1.26 Between 2020 and 2024, Transport Scotland responded to 95% of planning applications within its 14-day timescale, when all the required supporting information was submitted.

1.27 These figures are representative of systems that generally operate well. I consider that there is work that can be done in making data collection consistent and more comprehensive and still see work to be done in understanding why response times are not better still. However, the base line is essentially good, for the overwhelming majority.

1.28 That majority is often in less complex cases and I accept that delays in certain, more complex and often contentious, applications capture the minds of the public and campaigners (creating perhaps perceptions of delay and blockage). That was the sense of the representations made to me in this work. Some of my thinking has sought to address this, with a focus on these more complex applications involving greater engagement in agency interests. A key challenge in the system is improving speed and quality of engagement in such applications, without losing these successes in applications of less complexity or contentiousness. Designing a system that can, if only broadly, distinguish between complex and straightforward, to meet that need, is challenging.

1.29 In the short period open to me before reporting, it has not been possible to be fully comprehensive in gathering an evidence base or produce fully developed or worked up recommendations. I am acutely conscious that I have not been able to engage with or reach out to all with an interest in the shared goals. While I have had significant contact with all 5 Agencies, representatives of local planning authorities (through Heads of Planning Scotland (HoPS)) and representative groups of larger applicant bodies, I have not been able to take views from a more truly representative range of applicant interests. I have not given specific consideration to the roles of national park authorities and recognise that the inter-actions of certain Agencies with park authorities are fewer. They are nevertheless important contributors to the success of the system of planning in Scotland. All of this work should be seen as requiring further policy development and fuller and deeper engagement. I hope that these reflections, conclusions and recommendations are nevertheless of value.

1.30 Tied with that acknowledgement, I have given careful consideration to the potential financial impacts on businesses using the planning system, as well as considering implications on resources for local planning authorities and of course the Agencies themselves. I recognise that it would be undesirable in particular to place additional barriers (financial or otherwise) on businesses. Where my recommendations suggest such changes, they are developed carefully with minimisation of these impacts in mind. Each arise only where requested by the applicants engaged in this Review or where a clear case is made of a benefit to applicants in making such recommendations.

1.31 In offering the outcomes from this Review, I have given careful consideration to the ways in which the momentum that this work has already created can be continued in the period ahead. The recommendations in relation to the National Planning Improvement Champion are designed in part to do so.

1.32 I am conscious too that, despite the particular focus on Agencies, this Review is not the first to examine many of the issues. In recent times, groups such as the Proportionality Short Life Working Group, led by the Chief Planner, have considered similar issues. Where known to me, I have considered these other strands of work. I hope that, in this Review, I have stood on the shoulders of others to offer insights of value. Equally, I was made aware of other work done internally (by SW and HES, both previously and ongoing) to improve systems. This means that, for them, this work is to be read with such other improvements in systems and processes and can complement it. SW in particular have been through a significant period of business change.

1.33 I pay tribute to the highly focussed determination of the agency CEOs and all who I spoke to from the Agencies in embracing the need for change and improvement. I am grateful to the stakeholders whose contextualising contributions were invaluable.

1.34 In looking at systems and procedures, I have been keen to avoid being introspective or fault finding in individual cases or past systems. I recognise that perceptions are important and that, without doubt, some perspectives of how Agencies perform do not reflect current practice. In my engagement, I discouraged pursuit of hobby horses and simple anecdote.

1.35 I recognise that improvement cannot be achieved in isolation. Although the focus is on the Agencies, others in the system – local planning authorities and applicants for planning permission – all have roles to play in acting together in a coherent way to improve efficiency. In particular, the term “key agencies”^[1] has a meaning cross applicable in relation to the duty of consultation at Schedule 5 to Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and this includes other Agencies not included in my remit. I make certain observations as might lead to reflections with a wider perspective in mind, even though not translated into recommendations for those reasons^[2].

1.36 Equally, I actively sought views on lessons as might be learnt from other administrations or jurisdictions, close by or further afield. Collectively, we should be willing to look at other systems and processes that work. Most contributions were to the effect that Scottish systems serve the Scottish context well and no suggestions were made about specific improvements based on other planning systems.

1.37 In recognising that the landscape is complex, I accept that there is no easy fix to problems, real or perceived. Users of the planning system (where engaging with Agencies) are many and varied in their size and scale. These range from institutional users and multi-national companies to one-off individuals engaging with the planning system for the first time (and perhaps the only time in their lives). And everything in between. Combative or adversarial approaches serve the interests of no party in the planning system.

1.38 In light of that complexity, the remit of this work is limited to development management, in other words, systems relating to individual planning applications. I have not looked at the systems around development planning, by which I would mean development of local development plans (under new systems being rolled out under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019). In addition, though points were made to me about how responsive (or otherwise) Agencies have been to the National Planning Framework 4 launched, following Parliamentary approval, in February 2023^[3], I have not explored in detail how this aspect of the development plan context is operating. I recognise that context and would encourage all involved (including the Scottish Government Planning Architecture and Regeneration Directorate (PARD)) to continue with steps towards the reform of the development plan context as legislated for in 2019.

1.39 More widely than the development plan context, I recognise a fast changing world in addressing challenges such as climate change and what that brings to the planning system. Wind farms, space ports and battery storage systems (and more) all create new policy challenges for planners. There are times when these changes run ahead of policy adoption. But this Review proceeds on the basis that these matters are better developed through overarching policies rather than through individual planning applications. Where forced through the latter, systems often are not well-suited to addressing major policy or strategic matters in individual applications. In this Review therefore (looking at generally applicable systems as serve the vast majority of cases), I do not seek to make suggestions that are more apt for wider non-case specific policy development.

1.40 For similar reasons, while anyone is perfectly entitled to challenge policies and methodologies in principle that under-pin policies of the Agencies, I consider that these should be challenged on development of, or consultation on, policies, by encouraging policy change through other channels or through court challenge by judicial review if warranted, rather than as an adjunct to an individual planning application. This is important both in principle and in how disagreements should – in individual planning applications – be focussed on the facts of an application rather than the general soundness of an adopted policy or adopted methodology^[4]. While these distinctions can be hard to draw, I recognise that my suggestions may be less likely to be successful if they crossover into challenging policies and methodologies in principle.

Methods of working

1.41 This review is informed by meetings and workshops held between myself, the five key Agencies and representatives from planning authorities and applicants. Survey returns were also submitted by each agency during the month of July 2025.

1.42 The following has taken place:

• 31 July: Stakeholder Engagement Workshop

Opportunity for Heads of Planning Scotland and Applicant Stakeholder Group representatives to discuss and contribute their experiences with the planning applications process. Focus was on gathering evidence on good practice and to consider priority areas for action in relation to key agency roles in the planning applications process.

• 20, 25 & 26 August: 1-1 Discussions with each of the five agencies

Based on the themes emerging from the 31st July stakeholder workshop and the survey returns from each agency, these discussions focused on discussing potential areas for further investigation.

• 22 October: Meeting with the National Planning Improvement Champion

Focus on exploring options on supporting delivery of recommendations that may stem from the review.

• 30 October: Workshop 1 - Planning Assessments Process

Focused discussion with SEPA to explore the flood risk and flood risk assessment process, better understand the current arrangements and consider alternatives.

• 4 November: Workshop 2 – Pre-Application Procedures

Workshop with Key Agencies alongside Heads of Planning and Applicant Stakeholder Group representatives to explore systems and processes relating to pre-app procedures and the related requirements of validation of applications by local planning authorities.

1.43 Additionally, regular updates on the review were provided at the Minister for Public Finance and agency Chief Executive meetings held on: 26 June, 2 October and 11 December 2025.

Summary of themes emerging

1.44 The themes informing this Report are identified as improving speed, reducing complexity and enhancing shared goals.

From these themes, the Review developed a series of outcomes for potential recommendations under the following headings-

• Clarity of the roles of agencies
• Streamlining the service in front loading and early engagement
• Improving the use of technical expertise/assessments
• Continuing to collaborate and share best practice
• Improving pre-application discussions
• Better use of digital and artificial intelligence.