Planning applications: key agency rapid planning audits

Chapter 3 - Consistency Across Agencies and Continuous and Consistent Improvement

3.1 I reflect in Chapter 2 that the different Agencies each have a national remit but exercise that in different ways. These different ways of operating may have arisen because of the differing nature of their functions and may be in part because the Agencies have developed their functional and operational systems separately.

3.2 As those functions are significantly different, I have not explored either (a) the possibility of creating a single organisation covering the functions under one umbrella of all five Agencies or (b) streamlining the management structure of each to fit within one “ideal” model of senior leadership.

3.3 I have however considered a number of ways in which benefits could accrue from greater co-ordination, consistency and accountability across all 5 Agencies, in their planning functions. In discussions with Agencies, they fully recognised these challenges around different functions but still endorsed the desirability of having better and more consistent external facing systems (designed to enhance clarity of purpose and improve communication and engagement). They endorsed too the benefits of closer integration and understandings to ensure mutual learning of best practice in planning in other agencies and the scope to learn and improve from that.

3.4 In short, all Agencies accept and agree that, for all these differences, there is more that unites them than divides them.

3.5 In this Chapter I draw together 5 inter-related themes for consideration towards these ends. I commend them as a collective package.

Role of National Planning Improvement Champion

3.6 The current National Planning Improvement Champion (NPIC) (Craig McLaren) was appointed on 4 September 2023, with a term of office of three years. The role of the National Planning Improvement Champion is funded by Scottish Government and hosted within the Improvement Service.

3.7 In addition to the role of monitoring performance by planning authorities, the role of the NPIC may extend to “…providing tailored advice to organisations within the sector including authorities, Scottish Government, agencies, community groups and developer interests. In light of the definition of “key agencies” (see paragraph 1.35 above), it seems clear in this context that the NPIC has a potential remit in supporting the outcomes of this Review. He agrees.

3.8 He describes to me his current role in the following terms-

“The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 formalised how to measure and report on planning authorities' performance and support planning authorities to improve and in doing so established the National Planning Improvement Champion. They are based within the Improvement Service and have three key functions: to monitor the performance of planning authorities and provide them with advice; to identify and share good practice to support improvement; and to identify strategic challenges across planning services and broker action to address these.

It aims to support the purpose of planning to “manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest” through ensuring that:

• The planning system enables the delivery of sustainable, liveable and productive places.
• Planning services are equipped to work effectively and efficiently, embedding continuous improvement.
• Users are able to engage constructively with the planning system and planning service”.

3.9 Since his appointment, the NPIC has focussed his work on planning authorities themselves and has extensively and successfully engaged in a range of initiatives in relation to the creation of an improvement framework called the National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF).

3.10 I would commend these initiatives and encourage careful consideration of the work done so far (available at the National Planning Improvement pages), in the potential read across to this work.

3.11 Consistent with his role and the development of that role since he was appointed and as seen documents such as the NPIF, I see a potentially valuable role for the NPIC in developing a consistent set of data on the performance of the Agencies across a range of criteria in service delivery in their planning functions and, based on that, developing a range of criteria of best practice in Agencies (both individually and in creating enhanced consistency between Agencies). I recognise that this Review cannot and does not work in isolation and that co-ordination across all involved in planning processes is vital to the success of the planning system. The key stakeholders are the 34 planning authorities. This makes the NPIC ideally placed to meld together best practice in the inter-relationships between such authorities and the Agencies. Building on the work since the appointment of the current NPIC in 2023, timings appear to be me to be appropriate for him to take on that role in consequence of this Review.

3.12 A key attraction of this being taken forward is the potential through an expert, focussed and respected role (and post holder) to put in place monitoring and delivery steps once this Review has completed its work. As recognised in making Recommendation 17, this Review is not an end in itself.

3.13 I recognise the extensive work already done on improvement with planning authorities. The NPIF creates a matrix of 12 attributes of a high performing planning authority, reading through inputs and processes through to outcomes. It identifies the headings of people, culture, tools, engagement and place.

3.14 Not all of these are directly cross-applicable to Agencies and I emphasise that the roles in local planning authorities are different from Agencies. But, they are a sound and useful starting point for how Agencies can contribute to improvement, both for themselves and, with a common level of understanding of planning outcomes, in their future inter-actions with planning authorities.

3.15 Two themes in particular are striking in the work of the NPIC which appear to me to have a strong level of crossover to the work of this Review.

3.16 On Stakeholder engagement (& cross-agency engagement)-

A high performing planning authority should ensure a wide range of people are involved in shaping their future places. Engagement should be fair and inclusive, early, collaborative, meaningful and proportionate and should include difficult to reach groups. The authority should engage with a wide range of partners at a national, regional and local level to ensure a joined-up approach and that links are made across policies and programmes. The planning authority should demonstrate good customer care, transparency and effective communication.

3.17 On Digital, the NPIC asks-

• Has the planning authority encouraged and promoted planning applications to be submitted through the e-development portal?
• Does the planning authority have a data governance strategy in place for the management of planning data?
• Does the planning authority have the ability to use interactive web-mapping, GIS and spatial data?
• Does the planning authority have the ability to use digital approaches to engagement, including website, social media and other platforms?

3.18 On the basis of the above, I see a role (and make a recommendation to that effect) for the NPIC in monitoring, implementing and reporting in the Annual Report of the NPIC in that role. I am cautious though about seeking to set out the precise scope of this. This is matter to be developed in detail by the NPIC and the Scottish Government.

3.19 I nevertheless make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The National Planning Improvement Champion (NPIC) should be assigned a role in engaging with the Agencies to:

• develop a consistent set of data on the performance of the Agencies across a range of criteria in service delivery in their planning functions;
• develop a range of criteria of best practice in Agencies as part of an Improvement Plan for Agencies in their planning functions; and
• undertake strategic co-ordination between agencies, including attendance at cross-agency strategy meetings as a member ex officio of the Key Agency Group.

Strategic co-ordination between agencies

3.20 As set out in this Report, a recurring theme for this work has been the development of different approaches to similar problems, challenges and functions in Agencies in fulfilling their core purposes. While some rightly differ, I consider that a higher degree of strategic integration across all 5 Agencies, to share best practice and to understand it and, as appropriate, adopt it in the respective Agencies, would be beneficial.

3.21 The Agencies face existing and future challenges which are often of a shared nature – pressure on resources, an increasingly complex regulatory environment, increased expectations on delivery, increased expectations of effective and constructive use of digital or AI technology and many others. There is scope to work closely together to develop and improve common approaches relevant to their functions in relation to their duties under the Equality Act, approaches to the needs of business, data protection and GDPR, consistent approaches to the needs of islands and rural communities and in reflecting socio-economic factors.

3.22 All of the Agencies can learn from each other and must remain open to the need for continuous improvement. SW in particular have been through a significant period of business change and are to be commended for a range of improvements in their customer facing outputs, both on systems and in organisational culture.

3.23 Some of these responses to existing and future challenges may be susceptible to inefficiencies if best practice is not understood or shared. In some respects, better future integration of back office or other systems across Agencies can reap rewards and reduce duplication or inefficiency.

3.24 In recognition of the desirability of ensuring better and more consistent external facing systems and enhancing integration and understandings to ensure mutual learning of best practice in other agencies, I consider that more formalised arrangements should be put in place (or re-invigorated) for ensuring regular and frequent all-agencies meetings and engagement on common issues of strategy and public service delivery. I am told that these types of engagement have occurred in the past and I am aware that a group of this nature (the Key Agency Group) exists. I see some references to it in the information supplied to me and some of the documents issued by it. That existing group is understood to involve Agencies wider than the 5 in this Review.

3.25 That model is valuable and I commend it. In looking at the issues relevant to this review and the need for mutually consistent continuous improvement, I consider that, not least in consequence of the commission of this Review, a more formalised focus on these matters is appropriate, by a sub-group of that or by setting up a newly formed Group of these 5 Agencies. There is potential to shape or reshape the role, remit and delivery plan of such a group to recognise the importance of the agency roles in the context of planning and ensuring that agencies fully engage in planning matters, with the right level of strategic management and leadership oversight.

3.26 Formalising this role in that focussed way is considered by me to be important if the recommendation regarding a role for the NPIC is accepted and implemented. That person will be a vital component to the desirable enhancement of oversight and might attend in an ex officio basis, to help drive improvements and improve consistency.

3.27 Examples of the scope for increased consistency, efficiency and operational effectiveness are set out and recommended at various places in this Review. These could include-

• Consistency, efficiency and operational effectiveness in approaches to AI and digital systems and processes,
• Consistency, efficiency and operational effectiveness in approaches to pre-app matters and
• Consistency, efficiency and operational effectiveness in approaches to websites and website management.

3.28 A cross-agency structure of continuous improvement appears to me to be important to establish to drive the delivery of change. I do not envisage this as dealing directly with case specific issues but that ultimately is a matter for Agencies.

Recommendation 3

Formalised arrangements should be put in place through a new or refreshed Key Agency Group to ensure regular and frequent all-agencies meetings, engagement and delivery of outcomes on common issues of strategy and public service delivery.

The Key Agency Group should, within its remit relating to planning functions, include the desirability of securing inter-agency consistency (where appropriate) in the content and design of their own respective websites. This would identify areas of improvement across all agency web pages and other external facing modes of public communication.

Single Point of Contact or Chief Planning Officer

3.29 Weaving these two matters together, I have given consideration to the potential merits of recommending that each agency appoint a person to the role of being a Single point of Contact (SPOC) or a Chief Planning Officer in the agency, with some analogies to the role of Chief Planning Officer in local planning authorities.

3.30 My discussions with Agencies in this Review suggest that in effect such roles do already exist in some Agencies (though not always described or constructed in those terms). I would stress that the suggestion is not for the creation of an additional resource or post to that effect but a review by each agency of its structures to consider whether enhanced focus on the planning roles of Agencies might be improved by designating one single, appropriate official as a SPOC. That official, echoing the NPIC, would become the agency Planning Champion. The degree of resource support in that role is for the respective Agencies. The scope of the role would be for Agencies to consider, recognising the differences as well as the similarities with the role of Chief Planning Officer in local planning authorities.

3.31 I would envisage that post-holder having a prescribed and clearly delineated place and role in the strategic delivery of the agency functions at, as a member of, or having a direct voice at the Management Board of the Agency (or otherwise with the most senior decision makers in it).

3.32 I see this as having four advantages-

• It enhances and stresses the importance of the agency role in the planning process, empowering all involved in that role to strive to the highest quality of service delivery;
• It provides a single point of responsibility in overseeing the full planning role of the agency (including potentially on individual cases) to monitor consistency in outputs (both substantive and timings) of agency inter-actions and to deliver administrative efficiencies in their agency on planning matters;
• It provides a single and clear voice in the Management Board of the Agency or equivalent, with scope to influence improvements in their agency on planning matters (including the aligning of corporate objectives to reflect the importance of this planning role); and
• It provides a clear and single point of contact in the Agency for the NPIC in support of the work of that postholder, to ensure improvements of service delivery.

3.33 I would expect each person in that role to liaise closely by way of networking with other equivalents in other Agencies to drive towards consistency in a co-ordinated way, though again these are for the appointed persons to develop and agree at the newly reshaped Key Agency Group. Although the work in this Review has excluded development planning from my remit, I see no reason why this role should not include such policy engagement.

Recommendation 4

Each agency should appoint a person to the role of being a Single Point of Contact (or a Chief Planning Officer) in the agency to deliver the advantages identified in this Report.

Accountability to the Scottish Ministers and to Parliament

3.34 As bodies operating nationally across Scotland, none of the five Agencies comprise bodies that are directly elected or directly accountable to the Scottish Ministers and in turn to Parliament. There are reasons for this and there are differences in how each agency is structured. Some agencies are NDPB’s and some (TS and HES) are in fact parts of the Scottish Government.

3.35 In operational terms in the planning sphere (which is the essence of this Review) I do not suggest that these mixed arrangements for the constitutions of the agencies are problematic or impede service delivery. These arrangements serve wider purposes – and different purposes – from each other. The extent to which planning functions form parts of the Agencies’ roles varies.

3.36 In addition, I recognise that the independent functioning of these Agencies, not unduly seen as “reporting” to Ministers rather than fulfilling their proper specialist functions, is important to maintain.

3.37 In considering these issues, I have considered the most recently published annual reports of the Agencies. These contain, from the perspective of this Review, disappointingly few references to the planning functions of Agencies and their importance in the planning system.

3.38 In part in light of that and in terms of the strategic direction of the Agencies in their planning roles – and strictly separate from individual case specific applications determined with inputs from the Agencies – I have given consideration to whether there is merit in recommending consideration by the Scottish Parliament of a system of parliamentary committee scrutiny of their functions and strategic decision making as could be established by the next Parliament elected in May 2026. This could provide a direct line of accountability for the strategic operation of the Agencies both generally and building on the work started in this Review.

3.39 As I see some merit in this as a potentially longer term aspiration, I would flag this up for consideration in due course, including by sponsor teams of the Agencies within the Scottish Government. I cannot make direct recommendations to this or a future Parliament which will decide its own focus and priorities. I conclude that such matters are not apt for direct consideration at this stage by way of a formal recommendation. It should though be regarded as for consideration by the appropriate bodies, further to the step changes recommended in this Review, with a view to completing and enhancing the loop of scrutiny and accountability.

3.40 If taken forward, the remit and detail of this would fall to be considered in discussion between the Scottish Government elected in May 2026 and the parliamentary authorities as to how this could operate and with what frequency. While Scottish Government Ministers and officials in sponsorship teams might support the work of a committee as may be assigned this role, I would anticipate that the relationships between the Agencies and any such committee should be direct.

Accountability to stakeholders

3.41 As noted at paragraph 1.29 above, I engaged in this process with a small group of regular users of the services of key agencies in order to inform this work. This was invaluable and enabled me to focus on essential outcomes.

3.42 This was the case not least because the short period of the existence of this Review made it challenging to recommend improvements without being able to fully drill into the experiences of a wide range of users. I understood and accepted that from the start. But this did mean that not all concerns raised with me could be bottomed out or fully understood. Some Agencies understandably pushed back on certain suggestions of delay in processing consultations with them, based on lack of evidence. They indicated that if there was evidence of delay, this should be provided and investigated. Others suggested (I think with good reason) that certain complaints reflected historical experiences from the past that represent the old behaviours of certain Agencies and are not representative of their current service. SW made that point forcibly.

3.43 One lesson from that is how hard organisations (especially in the public sector) can find it to shake off perceptions or reputations. Trust and confidence can be lost in a moment and take years to restore.

3.44 Certain of the recommendations in this Report seek to bridge these different perspectives and perceptions and encourage a climate of transparency and continuous improvement, addressing criticisms and suggestions for improvement in a positive manner.

3.45 There is however in my view an overarching need to develop and continue the stakeholder conversations that this Review has allowed to start, to ensure that these mis-perceptions can be addressed and genuine ground for improvement welcomed and acted upon. I do not imply or seek to imply any failing in these regards in the past but simply see this Review as an opportunity to reset these stakeholder relationships.

3.46 For that reason, I consider that, insofar as not already done, each agency should establish a proactive stakeholder group, inviting key users of their services to meet regularly with them, under an agreed remit to share developments in practice and discuss concerns.

3.47 I do not suggest establishing one group covering all five Agencies, due to the diverse nature of the agencies and their respective users.

3.48 I recognise that developing separate groups is an administrative burden on Agencies and on stakeholders whose interests may extend to more than one, but consider that the benefits make proper investment in this form of relationship management beneficial. The format, shape, remit, membership and mode of operating would be matters for each agency separately (though as above, in terms of Recommendation 3, again potentially sharing best practice at the stage of establishment).

Recommendation 5

Each agency should establish a proactive stakeholder group, inviting key users of their services to meet regularly with them, under an agreed remit to share developments in practice and concerns.