Planning applications: key agency rapid planning audits

Chapter 6 – Digital and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

6.1 I undertake this Review at a particularly important time in the development, at great speed, of the use – and in the context of concerns about the misuse - of AI. Regulation of AI and questions about the need and extent of injection of financial resource to develop AI are at a hugely fluid point.

6.2 But I cannot ignore either the potential of AI to revolutionise our digital world or the threats of improper use of AI. The dangers in a cyber world are very real. I should record that one of the agencies forming part of this Review (SEPA) were victims of a cyber attack in December 2020 with debilitating impacts on their effectiveness, which casts a shadow over the organisation to this day. I pay tribute to the determination of all involved with SEPA to maintain their services and return to effectiveness as a key agency in the period since the cyber attack.

6.3 As with the changing policy environment, the digital, IT and AI world will be changed out of all recognition in 5 or even 3 years’ time. For that reason, I have not sought to second guess in detail what the Agencies – whether separately or together – could or should do to harness the benefits of AI.

6.4 Instead, I discuss generally in this Report some issues relating to co-ordination of digital services (see Recommendation 16) and recommend greater co-ordination across agencies (see Recommendation 3). On the latter, digital development and AI should, for the foreseeable future, be standing items.

6.5 These steps can address the need for updates to platforms for managing and processing applications; the need to create single common system that facilitates agency involvement in applications; the need to accelerate processes, including validation; and the potential to limit human error or miscommunication.

6.6 All Agencies recognise the need to improve through better use of digital and AI technologies but the scope to do so varies across agencies. There were suggestions of common themes and in some areas (such as from SW) where vast potential for saving money could exist with proper application of AI (though not generative AI).

6.7 The Scottish Government is committed, through its Digital Development Consents Programme, to developing a replacement for the eDevelopment.scot service, aimed at streamlining the process of applying for planning and building standards permissions. The programme has four phases with funding currently allocated to the first 3 phases to 2028. The final phase (phase 4), focused on introducing new technology to improve application handling has identified the potential to benefit agencies. However, given the timeframes proposed, my understanding is that this programme does not provide immediate opportunities.

6.8 One specific example of better use of digital and AI was flagged up to the Review. NS has developed and introduced the InformedDECISION online platform which assists staff in managing casework in addition to making it easier for planning authorities and developers to consult the agency and to know which cases require their input.

6.9 InformedDECISION helps NS filter out unnecessary consultations at the submission stage (as may assist in operationalising Recommendation 12).

6.10 Users can use the platform to apply for consent to carry out operations on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), check if it is necessary to consult with NS and submit a pre-application enquiry to request advice during the initial stages of a proposal.

6.11 NS are at present developing this platform further to act as a one stop shop for casework management. It also helps applicants and regulators to be clear about what information to provide to them in relation to applications. InformedDECISION also uses AI to identify the most relevant guidance to case officers and identify similar cases to them so that they can more quickly focus on issues and potential solutions.

6.12 Some other Agencies told us that they are – separately – exploring the potential for use of InformedDECISION. If so, a number of questions arose – are they using or considering using similar systems to secure different goals? Are they using or considering using similar systems to secure the same goals? Are the timings for use in line (for roll out)? Are there economies of scale in exploring an overarching contract with all three? Will the user experience vary, in content or timings? Is the procurement process working consistently in all these sets of discussions? What are the implications on the administrative burdens on authorities in consequence of these developments within Agencies?

6.13 None of those questions are for this Review and may give rise to issues of commercial confidentiality.

6.14 But the overarching question, as arises for this work, is whether in future better strategic integration and awareness of these areas of developing thinking on this issue, common to them, could work better if senior level leadership between Agencies were better connected. I make no specific recommendation of actions to follow from the above but, in light of the clear potential for benefits in public finance efficiency in the future, I recommend that work on AI, digital and website design and accessibility (see below) are all built into the work at Recommendation 3 above on integration of cross-agency work through the Key Agency Group.

Accessibility of website content

6.15 I should record that each agency website contains significant detail on the work of the agency and how to engage with them. That is clear from the returns given to me in July 2025, including the links to agency websites. Processes are in place, guidance is in place and checklists are in place, but, as accepted by the Agencies, these are not fully effective.

6.16 In this Review, I have considered the questions of accessibility (to professional advisors, professionally advised users and those users not so advised), comprehension (including use of plain English), ease of navigability, the degree and nature of technical content and accessibility to those who do not have English as their first language and to those with disabilities or other special needs in navigating electronic means of communication.

6.17 In doing so, I recognise in particular that a difficult balance requires to be struck between accessibility in general and the right level of technical information that is needed to assist different users to engage in effective ways. I recognise too the balance between appropriate brevity and detailed accuracy. Users can easily be discouraged or overwhelmed if faced with documents of many pages or where too many hyperlinks can impede rather than improve accessibility.

6.18 I recognise that Agencies are already looking at these issues and do so regularly. SEPA for example advise me that they “are currently reviewing our website content at present with a focus on customer experience and accessibility”.

6.19 The information available is extensive and varied and was valuable for me to explore in detail. A summary of the conclusions from researching a number of matters (such as whether planning responsibilities were easy to find; how clear it is as to how to contact agencies for advice; how clear is it on what cases they are likely to be notified on; how clear it is on what information requirements are needed, if to be consulted; whether it is clear whether the agency will participate in pre app consultation and in what circumstances; whether processes were easily communicated; and what sort of balance there is between technical language and plain English) is at Annex 2.

6.20 The conclusions from that website review are as follows.

6.21 The review of the five agency websites shows that, although each website provides a substantial amount of information about their planning roles, it can be difficult for applicants - especially those new to the planning system - to find clear, simple answers in one place. Responsibilities are usually explained well, but often across several subpages or detailed guidance documents. All Agencies encourage early engagement, but the routes into pre-application advice and the exact triggers for when they should be consulted are not always immediately obvious. A recurring theme is the need for more accessible, plain-English summaries that are presented upfront rather than being embedded in PDFs or technical guidance.

6.22 Improving performance across the system would largely come from clearer signposting and more practical tools for users. Agencies could introduce more straightforward “when to consult us” checklists and short summaries of what information applicants must provide, reducing the need to hunt through multiple documents. For example, Transport Scotland relies heavily on older PDF guidance, making quick answers harder to find; NS offers helpful tools such as InformedDecision (as above) but could bring key guidance together in one place; and SW could make its statutory consultee role more visible for first-time developers. Small changes of this kind would make the websites easier to navigate and support better-quality submissions from the outset.

6.23 I consider that this review of websites was a valuable exercise to have undertaken, not least because of the value in objectively reviewing an organisation’s website from the outside, uncoloured by internal organisational perceptions, cultures and understandings.

6.24 These forms of external engagement in relation to the content of websites (in part reflective of the differences of roles of the Agencies) show differences of approach, style, depth of data and information and levels of accessibility and understanding of users and user groups.

6.25 As can be seen from the full summary of that review as attached to this Report as Annex 2, these outcomes identify a range of matters for consideration to improve accessibility of the website contents.

6.26 I commend that summary and those reflections to the Agencies. However, as these matters are properly for the Agencies themselves in the content of their own websites and as this review of them has not been able to delve below the surface of the content, I make no recommendations on specific changes to the content or the approach towards the content of respective web pages. I nevertheless suggest that, in the re-invigoration of cross-working between agencies, the desirability of inter-agency consistency (where appropriate) is a factor to be built into such future work under Recommendation 3.

Accessibility of websites to users

6.27 Separately from the substantive content of the websites (though closely related to it), I have considered whether the agency websites could adequately be regarded as fit for purpose in a post IT world.

6.28 This question was more difficult to critique because I cannot fully and comprehensively assess the user experience. There is no one universal user experience. As noted above, the range of users is enormously varied.

6.29 With those limitations in mind and although each approach is different, I did not conclude that any one was a clear model for others or that my recommendations should apply to some Agencies and not others.

6.30 However, it does appear to me that co-ordinating future IT opportunities should be a key objective in support of the statutory roles of the Agencies.

6.31 I therefore make three recommendations in this regard.

6.32 Firstly, as my conclusions reflect initial impressions (as non-typical users) and a limited overview of the user experience from the web pages viewed from a planning perspective, I consider that a more detailed and comprehensive review, building on this work, is worth undertaking across a range of users from outside of the Agencies, to identify areas of improvement across all web pages and other external facing modes of public communication. That review should engage with professional advisors, professionally advised users, local planning authorities and persons able to input on behalf of those users not so advised. As I would see potential benefit (a) in ensuring cross-agency consistency and (b) drawing from the recommendation on consistency of data collation by the NPIC (Recommendation 2(a)), I suggest that this could form part of Recommendation 3.

6.33 Secondly, and subject to the outcome of the above review of websites, I recommend that the Agencies should explore the option, and if agreed, take steps collectively to engage with a duly procured provider of expertise in the constructing or modernising of websites to refresh the webpages of the Agencies. Though the content would remain for the respective Agencies (as above), such provider would be commissioned to provide advice on the style, shape, feel and accessibility of the respective websites and advise accordingly.

6.34 I recognise that this option necessarily involves a financial or funding commitment by them jointly that needs to be explored and justified as meeting the criteria of being good value for money and likely to secure outcomes justifying the expenditure. A carefully considered cost-benefit analysis is needed on the value in carrying out such an exercise.

6.35 As noted above, planning cannot be detached from other agency functions. High quality websites are not a panacea, but I consider that public confidence in the work of the Agencies can be considerably enhanced by adopting the most effective public facing systems of communications (which includes website design).

6.36 Thirdly, once all of the above is completed, all Agencies – consistent with Recommendation 3 – should establish cross-agency arrangements to maintain consistency, develop continuous improvement and carry out regular reviews of their websites to retain ongoing accuracy and relevance. Though difficult to interpret from the websites alone, it is possible that there may be different approaches to reviewing the websites. The maintaining of their continuous and ongoing accuracy and relevance to a changing world will be important.

Recommendation 16

Looking forward, Agencies should establish cross-agency arrangements to maintain consistency, develop continuous improvement and carry out regular reviews of their websites to retain ongoing accuracy and relevance. In particular, subject to the outcome of consideration of agency websites (by the Key Agency Group under Recommendation 3 or otherwise), all Agencies should explore the option, and if agreed, take steps collectively to engage with a duly procured provider of expertise in the constructing or modernising of websites to refresh the webpages of the agencies.