Planning applications: key agency rapid planning audits

Chapter 2 – National Scale of Agencies

2.1 Building on the contextualising of the challenges in Chapter 1, in this Chapter I reflect on the structure and the local nature of the functions of the 34 local planning authorities which, in a complete jigsaw, cover the whole of Scotland. I compare that with the national remit of the Agencies.

2.2 That split is not the only difference between them. The most important other difference being the direct democratic accountability of councils through election of councillors compared to the structure of the agencies (themselves different) whereby the Agencies are democratically accountably ultimately to Ministers.

2.3 As well as local democratic accountability, local planning authorities are the primary planning authority of first instance and can co-ordinate across all competing considerations impacting on the function of planning. That function applies at all three stages of their planning duties – development planning (including in local development plans); development management; and planning enforcement. Local knowledge of their area is a vital strength of how local planning authorities (including in this respect park authorities) function. These local and national (or wider) interests are not mutually exclusive. Local authorities often have regard to wider Scotland wide functions (in applying national policies such as NPF4) and Agencies are often highly sensitive to local needs.

2.4 In this Chapter, I consider certain aspects of the national scale of the agencies. I have considered how they operate and certain of the pros and cons of operating in that way. I have considered how this national scale can complement my later recommendations. I recognise that there are ways in which each agency operates in exercising their national functions differently, often for good reason. My recommendations seek to address where they can learn from each other and identify and emulate the best.

2.5 The advantages of operating at a (Scottish) national level can briefly be summarised as-

• Scotland wide consistency;
• Ability to view and consider the bigger picture (where for example river flood catchment areas do not coincide with local authority boundaries or where conservation areas straddle such boundaries or where inter-actions with national park areas arise);
• Reconciling where potential conflicts arise between national and local policies or priorities;
• The ability to provide inputs with a strict focus on the matters relevant to the agency, for consideration along with more general policies and other relevant planning considerations by the local planning authority;
• Institutional independence from the local planning authority;
• The additional weight that can be placed on the view of the agency as the official advisor to the Scottish Government in relation to functions described at paragraphs 1.6 to 1.11 above;
• Being a body serving the public interest as a centre of professional excellence.

2.6 I do not seek to rank or prioritise these, but comment on two in particular.

National consistency

2.7 Perhaps, the most obvious advantages of designating national bodies with functions in specific areas of responsibility are to ensure national consistency, strategic co-ordination that is harder to secure simply at local levels. Though Scottish Ministers have call-in powers, including where development is proposed having implications beyond a local authority area, it remains generally more desirable – in reflecting and respecting local decision making – for consideration of the proposal to be determined at first instance by the local planning authority. These decisions nevertheless will be importantly informed by national policies and considerations, such as NPF4, as well as local development plans developed and adopted for the authority area, after a process of development and examination strengthened in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019.

2.8 The locus and functions of the Agencies fit well into this structure. In that context, in this Report I consider how the advantages of operating on a national scale might be improved and whether there is scope for improvement.

Specialist skills and functions

2.9 The specialist functions of the respective Agencies led me to enquire about the ability of agencies to source or recruit staff or advice of the requisite standard to deliver a service of sufficient quality, commensurate with the status and influence of the agency.

2.10 These economies of scale struck me as important, not least because for certain local authorities (especially smaller ones) it would not be practicable to justify recruiting staff with highly specialist skill sets. Examples of such skill sets are ecologists, archaeologists or ornithologists (although there may be many more). In a small jurisdiction, the risk may arise of a perception that where a major development is proposed by a well-funded applicant – even the Agencies - may potentially have less capacity in the level of essential expertise that may be deployed. I am aware through other work done by me that this risk is identified in the Republic of Ireland.

2.11 I was generally re-assured by Agencies that their recruitment strategies and practical experiences have not identified this as a high risk to service delivery. With some exceptions, I was told that, both in terms of recruitment and retention of specialist staff, the Agencies are and remain in general attractive in terms of career choices and patterns of specialist staff.

2.12 Each of the Agencies apply recruitment, induction, training and retention strategies for their staff, in particular in specialist areas. I consider this to be vital if the advantages of having national agencies in their specialist functional areas are to be realised.

2.13 I considered in my work the extent to which these specialist staff have a sufficiently strong understanding of the nature and purpose of the roles of others in the planning processes such as local planners in planning authorities (and vice versa).

2.14 I explored with Agencies the extent to which job exchanges or secondments had been considered and applied, to broaden and deepen understandings and skill sets.

2.15 While recognised as potentially beneficial in a perfect world, there was little enthusiasm to explore these options, in part because of the practical disruptive effect of secondment type arrangements and partly because of the challenges of seconding highly specialised staff of the nature described above into specialist planner roles. It is also less clear that this can work for smaller planning authorities. Notwithstanding that, it appears to me that there may be more scope for Agencies, in deepening the skill sets of their specialist staff in particular in becoming centres of excellence, to develop ideas of cross-cutting skill sharing with local planning authorities.

2.16 The indications given are not that achieving this is because of insufficient financial incentives. As above, I was told that, in general, attracting high quality specialist staff is not an issue. But the risk of this – even if true – is that potential opportunities for improvement are lost.

2.17 The sense I have that the national scale of the Agencies allows the development of centres of excellence is important to state and re-state. It is clear that many of these aspirations are understood and very often delivered. But there is potential for the Agencies to build on that, to celebrate that potential and to apply that approach more widely and comprehensively. Some voices suggest that those with specialist roles can be overly cautious or blockers of innovation or novel initiatives. This characterisation – as a generality – appears to me to be unfair and unsubstantiated. But unaddressed, these perceptions can grow.

2.18 Despite all of the reassurances expressed to me (and to help defeat these perceptions), it appears to me that more can be done to develop strategies or enhance existing strategies, utilising highly skilled staff in specialised areas (as national scale can more effectively permit) to develop centres of excellence in a planned and more strategic way. These strategies would relate to specialist and professional staff recruitment, induction, skills enhancement, professional development and continuous improvement. These strategies could enhance awareness and understanding of the perspectives and needs of all users of the planning system, beyond those of the agency.

2.19 These centres and this model each has the potential for the very best in these specialist fields to aspire to be part of, serving the widest public interest and chimes with themes of public service reform.

Recommendation 1

I recommend that the Agencies separately and collectively should develop strategies (or enhance existing strategies) in relation to specialist and professional staff recruitment, induction, skills enhancement, professional development and continuous improvement. There should be a focus on openness and transparency and a culture of assisting in the constructive seeking of solutions. These strategies should enhance awareness and understanding of the perspectives and needs of all users of the planning system, beyond those of the agency. All of these should have the purpose of achieving a coherent and focussed objective in the creation of an increasingly effective centre of excellence for the agency, designed to enhance the professional reputation of the agency and to incentivise the effectiveness of the fast track system suggested at Recommendation 6.

2.20 I develop in this Report recommendations about innovation, led by the National Planning Improvement Champion (Recommendation 2), increased engagement with the most challenging (and most professionally rewarding) cases in a fast track system (Recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 10) and reducing the burden of more straightforward cases needing less challenging inputs (Recommendation 12).

2.21 Those recommendations are designed to enhance the aspirations set out in this Chapter and provide the structural capacity and capability in Agencies to respond to the fast tracking efforts of others and create a virtuous circle, benefitting the planning process and everyone in it, in speed, quality and cost.

2.22 The challenge for Agencies in their staff recruitment and career development policies in Recommendation 1 is how these can dovetail, tailored to their particular needs, with those recommendations.