Planning applications: key agency rapid planning audits

Chapter 5 – Awareness of roles and need by applicants to engage with agencies

5.1 In this Review, a number of themes emerged relating to the inter-connected issues of public awareness of the roles of Agencies, the nature of their engagement in the planning processes and their requirements in order to fulfil their functions.

5.2 As noted, the nature, extent and understanding of the roles of Agencies varies according to the type and size of body or person involved and often on whether they are repeat engagers in these processes and/or as professionally advised.

5.3 Nonetheless, there are clear themes suggesting a range of steps that can be taken to address the effectiveness and efficiencies of Agencies in the planning processes under this heading. The common theme to these is considering the benefits of enhancing the front loading of engagement. Front loading is to be balanced against potential duplication of use of resource if circumstances change in the course of a planning process (including possibly in consequence of front loading). It should not discourage high level discussions before detailed proposals have been developed.

External faces of agencies

5.4 In the course of this Review, most Agencies accepted that the general public levels of knowledge of their purposes and roles (beyond the most high level awareness of their existence) has potential to be improved.

5.5 That high level of general awareness – for example that NS are responsible for the natural heritage of Scotland and that HES are responsible for the built heritage – appears reasonably well understood, at least among larger and professionally advised users of the system. This may be because such Agencies have more direct contact with applicants. It may be less well known that TS are responsible for the trunk road system but that seems less likely to be problematic. TS gave no indication that there are significant numbers of examples of adverse impacts on trunk roads arising from people not realising in advance that TS need to be engaged with.

5.6 I am acutely conscious that anything I consider or recommend in order to improve systems pre-supposes that there is adequate public awareness of the purposes and roles of agencies (and therefore that there are systems in place and to be followed).

5.7 As these are wider matters than my planning related remit, I do not suggest that the Agencies embark on steps to more generally raise public awareness of their existence and roles.

5.8 However in the context of planning and the matters before me, the Review Secretariat carried out a review of the external faces of the agencies in looking at the website and other sources of materials notified to me by Agencies of such sources in relation to planning, attached as Annex 2. I set out more detailed recommendations in these respects in Chapter 6.

Effective early engagement

5.9 Building on awareness more widely of the detailed purposes of the Agencies, in consequence of current arrangements as may be impeding effective engagement, concerns were raised that Agencies may too often feel the need to lodge “holding” objections to protect their position pending full consideration. No persons who were engaged with approved of the use of such objections, especially if not containing any kind of helpful or substantive detail to assist any kind of tangible way in which the issues in potential dispute can be identified and addressed. Not only are such steps frustrating for applicants, these steps use up valuable resource in the agency in applications being submitted with essential information lacking. The fact that, as I was told, the vast majority are not ultimately maintained is not a positive matter. Rather it underlines the wasteful nature of this device. I do not criticise Agencies for using holding objections (and understand why they occur) but recognise the flaws in the system of engagement that gives rise to their use. For these reasons - if no other - any steps to reduce the use of holding objections should be encouraged. A Fast Track system and more effective front loading should be tools to help address that.

5.10 More widely, a number of issues raised with me suggested that consideration should be given to the processes and systems relating to pre application, validation and consultation with Agencies. These would follow from the identification of the types of cases that are treated as complex (Recommendation 7) and the review and update of bespoke guidance setting out in detail the key required information (Recommendation 8) to be applied to a Fast Track system (Recommendation 6).

Pre Application systems in principle

5.11 The value of Pre Application engagement (pre app) in the planning processes has been recognised for a number of years and continues to be recognised in ongoing work by planning authorities looking at continuous improvement. This includes work by the Proportionality of Assessments Short-Life Working Group. The process of pre app involves discussion before committing to an application for planning permission between the applicant and the authority (to a greater or lesser level of detail) on a potential proposal, to seek views (without commitment or having the authority to commit) on the prospects of permission being granted or to identify changes or improvements to that end. It is regarded as good practice if properly and genuinely entered into, so as to make the application process in due course smoother and more efficient. It saves time and resource (in the round) for all and has benefit in early engagement before the more formal timescales begin (at the date of validation) for consideration and determination. This front loading of upcoming applications is a highly desirable policy outcome. It is not without drawbacks (if it were to discourage innovative solution finding by requiring development of too much detail too early or where a proposal changes – perhaps in consequence of pre app discussions – and creates later duplication because the application submitted is materially different) but in the round is to be encouraged.

5.12 In this Chapter I consider matters addressed by this practice both on pre app and concerning its related processes (following pre app) of the requirements of validation of an application (to ensure that it meets minimum requirements to be considered as a planning application under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997). This allows identification of a date for consideration and determination and the calculation of time for such determination. Once validated, certain consultations can then formally take place. I address the related matters of validation and consultation below.

5.13 From the perspective of the Agencies, two themes emerged in this Review. Firstly, that clarity of the role of the agency and what would be needed to assess impacts on the part of agencies could be improved. That plays into validation. Secondly, that there is a delicacy – and difference in approach – on the nature of the role played (or service provided) by the Agencies at the pre app stage.

5.14 Agencies recognised that pre app often occurred when proposals were not fully developed or could become better in consequence of pre app discussions. It was notable that the further or additional need to engage with the same proposals (in developed form) later in the formal stage was recognised – sometimes inevitably – as a consequence of the complexity of developing a project. I agree. It is vital that procedures and processes retain flexibility in encouraging improvements in the designs of projects, especially in looking to accommodate concerns arising from the functions of these Agencies.

5.15 There were different descriptions of approaches to the roles of Agencies in front loading by way of pre app (or similar) discussions. I was impressed in particular with the Pre Development Enquiry Service used by SW. These pre app discussions cannot bind the Agencies (for the reasons above), but can be invaluable in smoothing out any aspects that might be wholly unacceptable to the agency (leading to an outright objection, as opposed to potential resolution by the use of conditions) or engaging in bilateral discussions making a broadly acceptable proposal better (from the perspective of all, including the agency). My recommendations in Chapter 4 encourage Agencies to build on that. This may read across to enhanced use of mediation in the planning system, but - in order to facilitate that - it is necessary to consider the process of pre app.

5.16 The pre-app process has become more formalised and embedded in statute. Provision is made to mandate the use of pre app in sections 35A and 35B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (with effect from as long ago as 2009). Pre app consultation on national projects and major projects (as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009) with community groups is provided for at regulations 4 and 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. There are benefits to be secured by every person or body engaging in planning processes in making pre app work. It is led inevitably and properly by the local planning authority who will be processing the application (once in due course received), in that role, and this should continue. Agencies can engage in pre app but I am clear that the local planning authority for the application site should remain the leading and co-ordinating body for pre app. All Agencies who expressed a view agreed with that sentiment.

5.17 The Proportionality Group as above has been considering these issues and I encourage that Group, working closely with HoPS and applicants, to continue their work on the process of improving awareness and the importance of engaging in pre app in an appropriate and proportionate way, balancing efficiency with cost effectiveness. I say that in part in recognition that how pre app works for Agencies is only a part (and indeed can be a small part) of the bigger picture and of more wide ranging processes that comprise pre app.

5.18 I also recognise that, for a range of reasons, different planning authorities operate pre app procedures differently. These can be because of scale of the authority, numbers of pre app engagements, funding and structural arrangements locally applicable. My comments are designed as being of general application. In the role of the review in looking at Agencies, I have not sought to understand and critique these differences and hence make no wider observations on consistency in pre app processes by authorities, save to acknowledge that different processes can complicate engagement with the planning process for larger scale or frequent users of the planning system across different parts of Scotland.

5.19 The Agencies in this Review all agreed with the foregoing. However, the information provided to me suggested – at this stage at least of the progressing development of pre app – that the potential efficiencies of the pre app process in reducing the application of resource in the formal stage are not fully materialising or have not materialised.

5.20 In theory, the benefit to Agencies of pre app engagement principally should be that, with application of resource to an efficient pre app process, resource should be saved when the full application is then consulted on, at the appropriate stage of the formal process.

5.21 The information provided to me suggests a welcome increase in pre app engagement over recent years (in particular in the responses by NS and SEPA), but without a commensurate or noticeable decrease in resource application in Agencies at the formal consideration or consultation stage. While I realise that complexity can explain high calls on resource as well as simply numbers and I recognise that proposals can develop and change as the concepts are refined, this statistical mis-match still requires to be explored and better understood.

5.22 This information does not suggest a lack of awareness of pre app procedures. The system is being used, but without clearly yielding tangible benefits to Agencies for the efforts made in pre app.

5.23 There were some suggestions to me (from Agencies) that Agencies were not well set up to engage as fully as would be desirable in pre app (and were not adequately resourced to do that). This is not wholly borne out by the figures provided to me in initial fact gathering for this Review in relation to the increase and numbers of cases of pre app engagement. In any event, the Agencies, with a range of others, are all committed and have all previously committed to the Key Agencies joint statement on pre-application advice in which all five agencies (and others), as signatories, give a joint agency commitment to pre-application engagement. This highlights the benefits of early engagement in the planning process. This includes a promise "to commit the resources necessary to input into effective early engagement".

5.24 Regardless of what I say below, I recommend that all Agencies renew their commitment to that joint statement.

5.25 In that Statement are 13 commitments, worth re-stating in full as follows:

The Agencies will:

1. encourage early engagement with planning authorities and developers

2. attend early meetings with the planning authority and developer to discuss a proposal and how it will be taken forward

3. commit the resources necessary to input into effective early engagement

4. engage in both formal processing agreements and informal pre-application engagement arrangements

5. work together to identify solutions, where possible to any perceived problems encountered, where possible

6. develop a good understanding of the nature of the proposed development and the developer’s aspirations

7. identify as early as possible any insurmountable barriers to the development or potential major risks associated with it

8. encourage developers to work with us in an open and constructive way

9. support planning authorities to lead and co-ordinate pre-application engagement

10. assist planning authorities to determine which Key Agencies should be involved

11. explain clearly what information we require to provide robust advice

12. work together to ensure consistency in advice

13. ensure the amount of information requested from developers will be proportionate to the proposal.

Recommendation 9

All Agencies should renew their commitment to the Key Agencies joint statement on pre-application advice.

5.26 I recognise that there may be merit in reviewing that joint statement in consequence of this Review and of those recommendations and changes or practice that follow (if accepted), but that is a longer term aspiration and – as above – engages the interests of other signatories not covered by this Review. I would like to see a commitment to an updated joint statement (as would be necessary, not least to reflect NPF4), but for these reasons do not include that as a formal recommendation.

5.27 Moving on from the general to the specifics, I have considered options for how pre app can be improved for the respective agency interests.

5.28 As above, I recognise that properly used pre app can never replace the formal system and should not aspire to (not least for the sake of propriety and transparency). But where done properly, it should mean that later consultation responses should more often be able to be progressed more efficiently. Since the response rates in the more straightforward applications is already high, this would allow more focus on the more high profile, complex and contentious cases, involving more detailed professional inputs by the staff of agencies, with faster response times.

5.29 I have considered the above mis-match from both the perspective of the eventual applicants and from the perspective of the Agencies. There is a read across to the below on validation.

5.30 Though an issue wider than pre app procedures affecting Agencies, one possible explanation is that pre app is not being fully or properly enough understood and engaged in by potential applicants and accordingly is not meeting the desired outcomes inherent in the idea of pre app discussion.

5.31 Accordingly, I make certain inter-related suggestions and recommendations on pre app, validation (in consequence) and consultation, taking these in the order they apply in the journey of an application. In each case, I stress that I make these suggestions and recommendations in order to form the basis of consideration, at first instance by the Scottish Government, and then, if thought fit, with wider consultation to ingather a wider range of views than has proved possible in this work.

Pre app engagement

5.32 All of the foregoing points to the benefits, not only of pre app in itself, but in front loading and incentivising the better utilisation, and greater formalisation, of pre app procedures.

5.33 I have drawn (a) on the evidence that is before me that points to a highly effective system of engagement in lower order and more run of the mill applications (though of course important in themselves, not least to the applicants) and (b) the clear messaging from the Agencies (with the possible exception of TS) that such applications are often not necessary to be considered by the Agencies.

5.34 From that, it appears to me that consideration should be given to enhanced use of a range of mandatory pre app requirements (without prejudice to other informal engagement with Agencies), but only mandatory where (a) the potential application will meet the tests (as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009) of being national or major as a class of development (bringing this into line with community groups) and (b) the requirements of consultation in terms of Schedule 5 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 are, or would be, triggered. In those circumstances, the applicant would be specifically required to engage in pre app discussions with the agency whose interests are identified as relevant. It would only be done with such Agencies whose interests are identified as relevant. This can be required under section 35B(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

5.35 The potential applicant would, in that event (unless waived by the agency), be required to provide the agency with prescribed information about the application, in conjunction with the planning authority concerned (see section 35B(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997). There is already a degree of this in relation to the matters at regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and I consider that an expansion of this could be considered, based on the apparent gap between these provisions and agency practice as described to the review. This would not stop informal discussions of the nature of those described above involving ideas not fully developed to engage formally in pre app.

5.36 Section 35B(4) of that Act sets out the essential content of pre app engagement. There are powers for Scottish Ministers to further set out the requirements concerned and I consider that these might relate to the reasons why the relevant agency has an interest, the asset of the agency affected or potentially affected where appropriate (including for HES where the potential impact is on the setting), where the impacts significantly affect the environment triggering an EIA or a scoping decision in relation to an EIA and a preliminary assessment of the impact and where for example the impact is on a SSSI or other circumstances relevant to NS. Further additional requirements may be considered appropriate for different Agencies. This is precedented in relation to community consultation under regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, with the content in that context prescribed at regulation 7(2A). As above, a starting model may be a review of regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.

5.37 In relation to matters requiring consultation with HES so far as affecting listed building consent, equivalent provision may be required over and above Schedule 5 in relation to impacts relating to their functions under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.

5.38 This mandatory front loading is only proposed in relation to national or major applications (and where agency consultation will in due course be mandatory). It appears to me to add little to the burden on business (unless the pre app is wholly speculative). If it leads to changes at the application stage for the agency interest, this would make the formal planning process more streamlined. It will have given the agency a material level of advance notice of an upcoming proposal, allowing for better resource planning at the formal stage (with reduced risk of areas of dispute or uncertainty).

5.39 An additional benefit would be that, where such discussion leads to the agreement between the prospective applicant and the agency that in fact no consultation at the formal stage is needed (so long as the application is the same or substantially the same as that discussed at pre app), the need to consult can be removed and the proposal could be certified as such (as could trigger exclusion from consultation under regulation 25(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013). If that were to become the norm or default position, the duplication of pre app and post application resource could be greatly reduced.

5.40 I consider that, as with the current requirements on community consultation and where a design statement is required, the applicant will, or should, have enough information about their proposal to reach a view as to whether these two tests are met. I do not consider that a pre app consultation report in its own right is necessary, though this is a matter for consideration.

Recommendation 10

Once Recommendation 7 is completed (and subject to the outcomes from that recommendation), the Scottish Government should consider an amendment of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 to make pre app requirements mandatory where (a) the potential application will meet the tests (as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009) of being national or major as a class of development (bringing this into line with community groups) and (b) the requirements of consultation in terms of Schedule 5 to the 2013 Regulations are triggered.

5.41 Since the information given to me suggested that front loading benefits would also apply to complex cases (not falling within the hierarchy as national or major), I see the above merits as applying too in relation to complex local cases, but not mandated as compulsory.

5.42 I believe in party autonomy for applicants in considering the merit of pre app, as applied to the question of whether they see merit in engaging. If agencies can offer a better and more focussed service in such cases, parties are more likely to utilise that service, to the advantage of all. Recommendation 6 is in furtherance of that end.

5.43 These suggestions involve nuanced suggested changes to the current system which recognises the benefit of pre app but could be improved giving further direction to, and encouragement of, its use. It is designed to re-frame cultures and attitudes (beyond major and national developments, where mandating pre app in my view is justified). It is designed to help address the resource duplication described in Chapter 4. It requires the successful development and improvements in service provision by Agencies, flowing from what I say at Chapters 2 and 4. It has the potential to re-align resource if formal consultation processes can be improved as described at paragraph 5.39 above and through greater use of regulation 25(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.

Validation

5.44 At the stage of validation, where the applicant then proceeds to make a formal application, the provisions of regulations 9 to 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 apply.

5.45 To complement the foregoing, I consider there is merit in making changes in assisting planning authorities in their duties of assessing applications with a view to validating them or not, where the interests of agencies are affected. I recognise the possibility that what I propose - in placing more responsibility on applicants (not least because these are their applications) - runs a risk of errors. But these risks exist already and are capable of being picked up by the authority or by the other safeguards I reference below. What I propose will place an increased burden on applicants in the form to be completed at validation. However again these are their applications and, if properly prepared, they will already have identified the interests of these Agencies. This assists applicants in front loading assessments of the interests of Agencies in the subject matter of the application.

5.46 Accordingly, I suggest that, if Recommendation 10 is implemented, regulation 9 of those Regulations is reviewed in consequence, in order to align the process of validation.

Consultation with agencies on applications once made

5.47 These suggestions are designed to make applicants more aware of the roles of Agencies; direct early discussion towards engagement between applicants and the Agencies (to facilitate reaching common ground); and reduce the extent to which Agencies expend resource in becoming involved in applications with no or little added value from their expert advice to a material degree.

5.48 This was a clear message to me. With the possible exception of TS in respect of impacts on trunk roads, the Agencies would welcome a way to become less involved in more minor types of applications where they expressed confidence that the more minor likely impacts can be assessed and protected by local planning authorities. Authorities on the other hand may have an understandable tendency – on a cautious basis – to default to consulting even where the impacts are minor and where these impacts can indeed be assessed and protected by local planning authorities in an entirely satisfactory way.

5.49 From what I heard about varying levels of expertise in authorities, seeking to ensure the capacity and capability to concentrate on the national and major applications (more likely to engage broader agency interests and more likely to require greater detailed care in the application of specialist skills and interests developed in the way described in Chapter 2) is consistent with the messaging to the Review that the system works well for the less complex applications. My proposals seek to build on and enhance that current strength of the system. They are designed not just to apply where Agencies consider that matters do not require to be referred to them but also where applications should be referred but do not comprise complex applications as determined under Recommendation 7.

5.50 Here I have considered whether there is scope to build on the above pre app and consequential validation suggestions to refine the systems of consultation once an application is made. Consultation is required under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and the key agencies and the triggering factors are set out at Schedule 5 to those Regulations.

5.51 Even if no other changes are made, I sought the views of the Agencies as to whether Schedule 5 remains the right expression of the circumstances in which consultation for the purposes of planning should be triggered. It was suggested by TS that the designation of the distance of 67 metres of a trunk road in paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 5 was relatively arbitrary (on the face of it), though probably some defined distance was needed. They also made the point – of likely relevance more often for trunk roads in the Highlands, where areas are greater and population concentrations lower – that a development on a single road 10 metres from the trunk road could potentially have the same traffic impact as it could have if 200 metres away along a little used road (even if not otherwise caught by paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 5).

5.52 SEPA also suggest a tightening up of paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to provide clarity on the circumstances in which a planning authority must consult SEPA on flood risk so that this aligns with their consultation framework. That consultation framework reflects the intent of NPF4 policy 22 on flood risk and water management and offers a more proportionate approach to the current Schedule 5 triggers for SEPA.

5.53 They suggest a tightening up of Schedule 5, paragraph 1(2)(a) through to (g), to align with their consultation framework. In that, their current Standing Advice deals with many lower risk aspects of these issues, without the need for a planning authority to consult SEPA. Both matters are in part addressed in my recommendations.

5.54 No other suggestions were made from other Agencies and, aside from those TS and SEPA points, no obvious options emerged from Agencies or our consideration on whether the Schedule 5 list no longer serves current needs.

5.55 While aware that other consultees are included, I would though recommend the giving of consideration by the Scottish Government of the content of Schedule 5 and its continued accuracy as factors to be consulted on.

Recommendation 11

The Scottish Government should carry out a review of the Schedule 5 requirements as to the content of Schedule 5 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and its continued accuracy as factors to be consulted on.

5.56 In order to address the concern about undue numbers of consultations on less complex matters (where agencies would be content to leave matters for local decision making), I have considered practical options of an alternative.

5.57 Under that alternative, rather than have a system whereby a local planning authority consults an agency as at present, it would or could - in the same circumstances as at present - send the application (or notification of the engagement in a pre-app process) to the agency but on the basis of one of two forms of consultation. This would be either (a) tell the agency or (b) tell and ask the agency. This would apply only to local developments (as defined in the hierarchy).

5.58 The tell and ask procedure is the equivalent of the current consultation requirement that the agency would consider as at present (to complement the above suggestions regarding pre-app systems).

5.59 The procedure of only telling the agency would arise where the local planning authority considers that there is no likely basis for needing examination by, and a consultation response from, the agency. Such circumstances may need guidance from Agencies to steer the authority when they apply. The feedback to me is that often full consultation is not needed in local developments and that the agencies are confident that the local planning authority is fully skilled to determine the application without the input from the agency concerned.

5.60 Where they simply "tell" the agency, one of two things would happen-

a) If the agency, guided by smart AI systems and resource appropriately qualified according to the task, agree that no response or engagement is needed, they would not reply. The authority would proceed on the basis that the agency is content, if no contrary response is given within, say, 14 days (being the statutory consultation period); or

b) If the agency, so guided, do not agree that no response or engagement is needed, they would have 14 days to notify non-agreement and 14 days from the end of that period to provide a consultation response as if they had been asked.

5.61 The dates referenced are indicative suggestions only, based on existing requirements, read with the time period for the determination of the application.

5.62 The option of "tell" would not be open at application stage if, at the pre-app stage, option (b) had been triggered.

5.63 Option (b) would be the fall-back protecting the agency from the risk of human error by the local planning authority and my expectation is that it would very rarely be used. This is designed to, and should, give comfort to the local planning authority that they don't need to be overly cautious and tell and ask everything (because of this safety net).

5.64 Option (a) should assist to reduce bureaucracy in the agency (at least for professional staff), leaving them to focus on higher profile or more challenging cases (appropriately triaged). But it also means that the Agencies still have records of impacts on their assets in consequence of planning applications.

5.65 My expectation is that these suggestions of providing only the “tell” option would not apply to national or major applications (unless confirmed by the agency as requiring no consultation).

Recommendation 12

The Scottish Government should consider providing guidance to local planning authorities recommending a change to practice on consultation where it considers that no material need to consult or where the circumstances are not designated as complex, to create a two tier consultation process, where full consultation under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 is not required in those circumstances, supported by a mechanism for Agencies to provide their full consultation response (where considered necessary).

Time periods for consultation with agencies

5.66 Related to the issue of triaging (see below), I was told that not all planning authorities in consulting with Agencies give the same time period for comments. Some ask for comments within 14 days and some 21 days. The statutory period is set out as a minimum of 14 days.

5.67 I recommend that all local planning authorities should work together to align their timings of consultation requests with Agencies, in accordance with, and meeting, the statutory period. There were no suggestions by Agencies that this statutory minimum period was, in itself, insufficient or should be changed, though that matter may be a matter in due course for consideration by the NPIC (see above). The desired outcome here is agreeing and setting the most appropriate timescales that work best for all.

Recommendation 13

On time periods for consultation with Agencies, all local planning authorities should work together to align their timings of consultation requests with Agencies, in accordance with, and meeting, the statutory period under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013.

Call in by Scottish Government

5.68 In developing the foregoing suggestions for consideration, I looked at a range of issues relating to the powers of call-in of the Scottish Government.

5.69 Two of these are procedural in nature and relate to the implications arising for the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009. At a general level, although perhaps applicable only indirectly to the work of this Review, I have considered the continued accuracy of that Direction (as was mentioned to me by SEPA). Potentially as a consequence of, or in conjunction with, a review of Schedule 5 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (Recommendation 11), the need for alignment of that Direction with any changes may arise, as well as a more general update.

5.70 One potential alignment might relate to the proposed additional pre app requirements set out above. The amended alignment would relate to category 2 circumstances in the Direction (Objection by Government Agency). It might be considered useful (not least to incentivise compliance) for any referral to the Scottish Government under the Direction to include, by adding to the list of documents to be submitted at paragraph 23, a summary of the pre app requirements as met and a note of the outcomes of that process, along the lines of paragraph 23(f). This could assist consideration by the Scottish Government as to whether or not to call the application in.

5.71 These cross-dependencies with the Direction and the wider purposes of call in options for the Scottish Government might raise a question about the use of call-in powers and whether these powers ought to be exercised more often^[5]. These matters are beyond my remit though may be worthy of later consideration to complement the suggestions I make (if implemented) in relation to more focussed front loading. At most, increased use of call-in can only arise (at least in terms of category 2 of the current Direction) after an application is made and so could only indirectly assist in relation to pre app (by way of providing greater oversight of compliance). It would not necessarily follow that the number of times in which the exercise of call-in powers would increase. That would be a matter of case specific – and wider policy - consideration. I make no recommendations in this regard.

Triaging of consultations by agencies

5.72 While recognising that each agency has different functions (though each contributing to similar ends in the context of planning), I found that the approach to triaging requests and consultations differed across the Agencies.

5.73 Mindful of the differences in the need to apply resource and the contrasts in speed of responses (see above), I see scope for mutual lesson learning in how best to triage or co-ordinate prioritisations in workloads. Though needing to be fair, I agree that simply dealing with consultations in the order they are received (regardless of significance or complexity) is not in general the right approach.

5.74 This appears though to be the approach of TS as appeared surprising when applied to the Highland Council area (where a high number of their consultations apply to). I simply observe that, in such a large area of Scotland, where site visits are needed, a clustering of cases on a geographic basis would appear to have merit.

5.75 More generally, it appears to me that a necessary consequence of the recommendations in this Report, if implemented, would be that Agencies review their triaging policies to reflect how this is applied. The scope for mutual lesson learning in how best to triage or co-ordinate prioritisations in workloads suggests that due consideration should be given to this in terms of the enhanced cross-working group recommended at Recommendation 3.

Recommendation 14

Agencies should review the way in which they triage planning application consultations (including pre app) in the way that they co-ordinate prioritisations in workloads, to reflect the changes recommended in this Report.

Training Requirements for Elected Members

5.76 Recognising that, while inputs from Agencies are vital, the ultimate decision makers in respect of planning applications are the local planning authorities and more specifically their elected members, I have given consideration to the matters before me in light of section 45 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. That provision creates a power (not yet in force) to impose training requirements on elected members exercising planning decision making functions.

5.77 My understanding is that the full implementation of this is in development and that an online mandatory training package for elected members is intended to be rolled out for the local government elections in May 2027.

5.78 I did not feel that it was appropriate to engage too deeply in this matter which remains primarily for PARD. However an acknowledgement of the inter-action with this Review is appropriate. I recommend that in the development of this programme, in furtherance of section 45 of that Act, consideration is given to including modules addressing and explaining the functions and inter-actions of all Key Agencies with the planning functions of local authorities. This is further to the purpose of awareness raising and improving the quality of planning decision making.

5.79 A degree of that exists already. SEPA told us that they “continue to focus on raising awareness of our role amongst MSPs, Elected Members and planning authorities as it is not always clearly understood. We ran two separate events on flood risk recently via the National Planning Skills Improvement Plan training series. These were well received and attended by 600 delegates”.

Recommendation 15

In the development of their programme on training requirements for elected members of authorities, in furtherance of section 45 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, consideration should be given by the Scottish Government to including modules addressing and explaining the functions and inter-actions of all key Agencies with planning functions of local authorities.