Planning applications: key agency rapid planning audits

Chapter 4 – Streamlining of service

Duplication of specialist skills

4.1 In light of the discussion in Chapter 2 in relation to the balance of skill sets in national and local agencies in the planning process, the issue was raised with me of potential duplication of resource. This is where – unnecessarily – technical or expertly interpreted differences arise in matters capable of objective resolution. The potential consequence of this is delay and expending of wasted resource before decisions can be made.

4.2 The issue of how specialist skills and inputs are best deployed, in furtherance of high quality decision making, is challenging.

4.3 This issue engages a range of potentially contradictory considerations such as-

• The balance between expertise and decision making by elected members who do not have the specialist skills at times relied on;
• The difficulty of addressing these issues where the objectives of parties may not be aligned to shared or common desired outputs;
• The scope for genuine disagreement over methodologies and the application of methodologies to the factual circumstances;
• The balancing of competing policy priorities.

4.4 In this Review, although the principles are applicable to all Agencies, I have considered – in effect as a test case – the approach taken in relation to flood prevention and management. This was the subject matter of the deep dive I held with SEPA on 30 October 2025. I felt this would be useful in part because of another dimension in relation to flooding is that the risks are complicated by future uncertainties arising from climate change and where past evidence of risk is less clearly of assistance in gauging future risks. In addition, I understand that in some of the larger planning authorities, there are in-house advisors on flood risk, providing additional inputs on matters falling to SEPA as the national agency in this respect. I recognise the acute challenges for local planning authorities and elected members in considering contested applications in light of the duties on SEPA and the advice given by them (as the appointed body with functions of flood minimisation and prevention). The key means of addressing these matters is through a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), where needed.

4.5 These matters raise the potential for scope to (a) simplify the assessment process (b) avoid or minimise disagreements and (c) minimise delay in the planning process.

4.6 While it may appear that there are 3 groups of flood experts in public bodies operating in the same space ahead of decision making, this appears explicable to me because they carry out different functions. SEPA, local authority flood officers (where available) and on occasion Scottish Government flooding technical input staff (in notified cases) all provide different functions, which by their nature require a degree of separation either from a statutory perspective or a delivery perspective (or both).

4.7 Of importance is the distinction that SEPA offer advice only in relation to their functional areas of responsibility, while local planning authorities decide applications, in balancing a full range of planning policy considerations of which the flooding advice is only one. It is to the credit of all the Agencies that they acknowledge that.

4.8 The Proportionality of Assessments Short-Life Working Group has discussed whether there is scope for a single flood risk assessment, for a proposed development, to be undertaken by an accredited assessor (or a nominated key agency) and accepted by all parties. The Group thought that this type of solution, in broader terms, would merit further consideration as a means of reducing time and cost for all parties. More templates and standardisation of assessments also has potential. My recommendations in this Report are consistent with that.

4.9 In the time available, I have not been able to pursue this in the identification of and discussion with bodies with responsibility to accredit experts in this area. The Group may wish to pursue this in more detail, but I have a number of reservations that would in my view need to be considered in this context, as follows-

1) The clear indications that different bodies carry out different functions on flooding. SEPA were clear to me that the numbers of contentious flooding matters (that merit an FRA and cannot be addressed fully by the local planning authority without reference to them) are low;

2) My recommendations to front load engagement more effectively should allow earlier identification of cases falling into categories where expert views differ, can be narrowed further;

3) Though I see merit in potentially seeking to agree key matters earlier in the process, these appear to me mainly matters of fact, relating to the circumstances of the application and its catchment area context. Looking at identifying an agreed expert to review high level policies, question methodologies or question national policies ought not to be looked at in the context of individual applications, as noted at paragraph 1.41 of this Report; and

4) It is not clear to me (a) whether there is a sufficient body of accredited specialist experts with skills in this field (not already commissioned by parties in an application and therefore conflicted) available to form a workable body of expertise to meet this demand nor (b) who would pay for such expertise;

5) While SEPA could no doubt benefit from seeing other perspectives (especially if limited to the facts), the ultimate function of theirs under statute cannot be devolved to a third party or independent expert. Under the terms of section 268A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, mediation is encouraged. However SEPA must remain unfettered in the exercise of their functions. Although the view of SEPA cannot always prevail in any one case, they must be entitled to properly exercise their statutory functions, notwithstanding such steps.

4.10 In relation to point (3) on better identification of local information and catchment area forecasting, I was told for example that local authorities in the Glasgow area already have more detailed and sophisticated data in relation to the River Clyde than in some other areas. Such data appears to have the potential to secure the desired ends of minimising disagreement if provided and maintained throughout the country. I was told of the same – underway but understood not yet completed - in Orkney. In neither case has the Review been able to drill into the detail of these examples.

4.11 What these reservations suggest to me is that the more pressing priorities are the development of my recommendation regarding centres of excellence (Recommendation 1) and a fast track process (Recommendation 6).

Options for change – Fast Track service

4.12 Drawing these matters together along with the matters in Chapters 2 and 5 of this Report, I would conclude that a more focussed response to the issues of perceived duplication could be targeted through streamlining and increasing the efficiency of early engagement in complex applications which engage agency interests. This could be done in a way that can enhance mutual understandings and mutual confidence in acknowledging the importance at a national level both of the project concerned and the duties to protect against flood risks.

4.13 The UK Government too is giving thought to matters in similar ways. It has recently published a Paper by HM Treasury on a “New approach to ensure Regulators and Regulation Support Growth” exploring, at section 2.1 of that Paper, the Streamlining of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

4.14 Although what I say above is focused on SEPA, the recommended areas for consideration below apply to all Agencies in these regards.

4.15 More detailed suggestions for developing these ideas are set out in Chapter 5 of this Report, around steps towards or encouraging greater levels front loading and earlier engagement. With that front loading and early engagement, an option for each agency could exist to adopt a "fast track" system in complex (including national and major) applications that would be prioritised over the more routine involving faster consideration, by a specialist team in the agency, intensively focussed on such cases. It would be open to be used only in such applications. The applicability of this to Agencies other than SEPA – though in principle no different – would be shaped by the work by each of them to identify categories of complex cases as envisaged by Recommendation 7, the steps taken under Recommendation 8 and the revised triage arrangements under Recommendation 14, all as developed below.

Recommendation 6

Agencies should consider, with a view to adopting, a "fast track" system in complex (including national and major) applications that would be prioritised over the more routine involving faster consideration, by a specialist team in the Agency, focussed on such cases.

If adopted, they should publish a Protocol of how it would engage with the applicant in assessing for the interests of the agency, giving consideration of the facts and policies, developing an early indication of likely response (or early identification of any missing information), undertaking to assign the case to their specialist team to prioritise engagement and undertaking close liaison to the outcome desired. The Protocol would include guidance as to the approach of the agency to the application or otherwise of the fast track system where the requirements of guidance under Recommendation 8 are not satisfied.

Identifying complex cases

4.16 In developing my thinking as set out below, I have thought carefully about the dilemma described. This is that the less complex applications are generally addressed quickly and efficiently (as the evidence at paragraphs 1.22 to 1.26 above suggests) while problems and delays are more likely to occur in the more complex. Contentiousness comes into this too, but complexity and contentiousness are not necessarily the same (or warrant the same solutions). Although I use the term as a shorthand, another way to describe complexity for Agencies are applications which (for them) engage the need for rigorous and careful analysis based on their expertise and responsibilities (as distinct from (a) where they would be content not to engage and would be content to leave matters to the planning authority (see below) or (b) where, though consulted, involving applications that have, or are likely to have, lesser impacts on their assets or responsibilities).

4.17 There is no easy way to define, even generally, a distinction between complex and less complex that allows improvements where needed while keeping the benefits of efficiencies in less complex applications. This is partly because complexity is subjective. It is partly because matters as may seem relatively straightforward at the outset may turn out not to be. Complexity is a nebulous concept and not easily defined with precision.

4.18 The inter-actions between complexity and the different interests and requirements of each agency cannot be easily described or unpicked. For that reason, further work needs to be done by Agencies in establishing clear frameworks in which can support better decision making in complex cases, if the issues raised by them with me can in future be addressed. The starting point is defining complexity. Applicants and local planning authorities would benefit from more clarity in this regard and on the information needed by Agencies to fulfil their functions.

4.19 I consider that the respective Agencies are best placed to develop that framework by developing, consulting on and publishing criteria of the sorts of factors engage the need for rigorous analysis based on their expertise and responsibilities. The content of such frameworks would vary across Agencies. Some already have developed helpful functional guidance in the form of Standing Advice, published from time to time and as is varied over time as circumstances change.

4.20 This task is to be addressed to Agencies for two reasons – firstly as they themselves are best placed to reach a view on those factors; and secondly as this allows them to determine the circumstances to which the enhanced fast track service (as above) will apply.

4.21 I recommend that each agency take steps in a manner of, or similar to, Standing Advice to develop, consult on and publish criteria of the sorts of factors engage the need for such analysis of applications.

Recommendation 7

Each agency should take steps (in a manner of, or similar to, Standing Advice) to develop, consult on and publish criteria of the sorts of factors, based on complexity, which engage the need for rigorous analysis based on their expertise and responsibilities to identify which pre app discussions and applications, to trigger the availability of fast track procedures referred to in Recommendation 6.

4.22 The recommendations in this Report flow from and are conditional on the effectiveness of the provision of clarity by Agencies of these matters.

4.23 I should stress that this guidance will not be, nor cannot be, definitive in answering all future questions on how the functions of Agencies should be exercised. Each case will be different. Flexible application of such frameworks will be key. However, clearer differentiations in understanding when a more rigorous engagement with Agencies is needed (and when not) should assist in addressing the concerns expressed to me.

4.24 Building on the hierarchy under section 26A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and embedded in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, my recommendations below therefore create a distinction between national and major applications as might reasonably be taken as complex or otherwise worthy of treating as such, in all cases (where a greater degree of direction to applicants is more appropriate) and other applications that are still complex (where encouragement of greater and earlier engagement is valuable, but leaving matters in the hands of applicants). My recommendations in this Report are to be viewed in that context.

4.25 I address firstly the issue of where direction to applicants is appropriate by applying the hierarchy set out in those Regulations. The hierarchy there distinguishes between national, major and so called local applications. In looking to mandate changes in pre application procedures in practice, applying these to national and major and applications appears to me in general to be the right categorisation. Reflecting the need for flexibility, I then go on to suggest that these procedures should be open to be applied to complex “local” applications where, in the view of the applicants and guided by the agency frameworks, merit is seen in engagement. The choice to do so should remain for applicants, but incentivised by enhanced engagement from Agencies through fast track systems.

4.26 An alternative of course would be to refine the categories for these purposes by a targeted change by amendment of those 2009 Regulations in order to secure the right balance. This is permitted under the flexibility provided in section 26A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and might become possible or appropriate if the agency reviews under Recommendation 7 suggest that. However, that seems unlikely at this stage and would lose the flexibility of being able to be changed quickly if circumstances change.

4.27 Having endeavoured to set out the challenge faced by Agencies, as described to me and having suggested a process for identification of complex cases, I turn to assess two potential matters that would follow from that, for consideration and, where thought fit, consultation - guidance setting out in detail the key information as will be required (paragraphs 4.28 and 4.29 and Recommendation 8); how Agencies should engage (paragraphs 4.30 to 4.35); and where the fast track procedures, even if meeting the criteria, may not apply (paragraph 4.37).

4.28 For such cases (as identified in categories as so envisaged), each agency should be required to publish guidance on how it would engage for its interests (from the date of notification with set details, obligated as being at the stage of pre-application procedures), in assessing the project for the interests of the agency, giving consideration of the facts and policies, developing an early indication of likely response (or early identification of any missing information), undertaking to assign the case to their specialist team to prioritise engagement and undertaking close liaison with the applicant. The suggestion is that such guidance would complement, and be consistent with, any local authority Processing Agreements (and would respect the primary decision making role of the local planning authority) but with a focus on what the agency would need (a) in order to trigger the effective use of their fast track procedure and (b) in order to reduce the need for, or risk of, holding objections.

4.29 It is clear from the current agency websites that considerable effort has gone into these matters of the adequacy of information by the Agencies in the past. I address below how the presentation of this information could be improved. I address here the question of the substantive content of this guidance. Beyond the current websites, I have considered another precedent for such an approach that can be seen in guidance issued by the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit (ECU) in relation to applications under section 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 on the minimum information required and how that will assist early assessment (ECU Good Practice Guide). While the direct read across of that guidance is not complete, the emphasis on full and early engagement with full information is helpful. This guidance was commended to me by some of the Agencies. I found it informative as to the ECU approach, though in itself could not be a complete answer to the dilemma of holding objections.

Recommendation 8

Each agency should develop (or review and update) bespoke guidance setting out in detail the key information as will be required in relation to all applications (including in particular complex applications) about what information is required, in what form or levels of detail and identifying key agency or other relevant policy documents or other materials as are necessary in order to allow the agency to respond effectively and in a timely manner. This would include the need to identify the agency asset or interest affected and the information needed to assess the impact.

4.30 Where disagreements between the agency and the applicant (in respect of the role and functions of the agency) are identified, they would be set out and categorised (distinguishing between factual and policy) and then addressed between parties. The agency would undertake to identify key cross-dependencies as well as missing information (informed as below by published guidance on essential information) and to seek to agree a time line for involvement (though with the agency having final say, if not agreed, as between them and the applicant).

4.31 As the focus would be directed to disagreements about facts, the agency would be obliged under the fast track system to explore informal channels to agree key facts, as might include an independent person working with parties to that end (if the above difficulties could be overcome). Where there are disagreements over methodologies and policies, these could be examined jointly to see if common ground can be reached. The key overarching focus, in either respect, would be the scope to agree common ground.

4.32 The agency would undertake to explore constructively whether a solution by considering conditions is an option and develop conditional solutions or a roadmap to them, where possible.

4.33 Although proposed to be available to all such complex (including national and major) applications (set out pursuant to Recommendation 7), it appears to me that an essential component of an enhanced service from an agency (and as a corollary to that) would be the inclusion of an acceptable minimum level of information and detail by the applicant, to trigger engagement. The agency would engage in discussion on the adequacy of information but prioritise applications meeting the expected standards of information provided (in circumstances where, from agency Standing Advice or equivalent (see Recommendation 7) the need for significant consideration by the agency is identified).

4.34 I have considered how this fast track system can be made to work alongside existing resource. My suggestions tie in with a potential re-focussing of resource in consequence of (a) better use of AI (b) the development of Agencies as centres of excellence and (c) the more effective deployment of non-technical resource in light of the suggestions made in relation to pre-application procedures and validation.

4.35 In addition, mindful of the additional inputs needed from applicants, I have considered whether expectations would rise and what would happen if an applicant feels that the service wasn't beneficial or represented good value for money. However, the onus must be on the Agencies concerned to identify in practice and in detail the added value that a streamlined service would bring. I set out reasons to, and benefits of, adopting this approach and do so in response to representations made by all who I spoke to in this review.

4.36 As I make clear, the fast track system would be applicable only in appropriate cases. I recognise that the more minor inter-actions are all working generally well (but the concerns tend to be with the more complex cases engaging agency interests) and the key is to be clear that maintaining the good parts of the system are vitally important.

4.37 I would anticipate that there could be circumstances where an agency could decline the use of the fast track system, even where otherwise meeting the criteria for it to apply. A range of reasons could occur, including inadequacy of resource; if the approach is regarded as entirely speculative; if essentially the same project comes forward within say 12 months of rejection (unless modified say to meet points made by the Agency); or if the Agency consider that the idea so fundamentally (and unacceptably) challenges issues of principle and thus give no realistic prospect of success of the sort of solution envisaged. In those types of circumstance (hopefully though rarely), they could decide not to use it. The application would then proceed as at present. In my recommendation on future triaging (Recommendation 14), it is through a reviewed triage policy that these matters of prioritisation and resource would be addressed.