Planning and Environmental Appeals Stakeholder Forum minutes: December 2025

Attendees and apologies

DPEA attendees

• Scott Ferrie, Deputy Director, Chief Reporter Planning and Environmental Appeals
• Martyn Connolly, Head of Delivery
• Allison Coard, Assistant Chief Reporter
• David Liddell, Assistant Chief Reporter
• Trudi Craggs, Assistant Chief Reporter
• Sonya Thomas, Business Support Officer

Attendees

• Adele Shaw – Historic Environment Scotland
• Aileen Jackson, Scotland Against Spin
• Amy Howard, Wright Johnstone Mackenzie
• Bernard Whittle, Heads of Planning
• Bruce Walker, Homes for Scotland
• Clare Symonds, Planning Democracy 
• David Law, NatureScot
• Esme Clelland, Scottish Environment Link
• Jenny Munro, Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland (RTPI)
• Joe Dagen, Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland
• John Esslemount, Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland (APRS)
• Maurice O’Carroll, Scottish Planning, Local Government and Environmental Law Bar Group
• Megan Amundson, Scottish Renewables
• Rachel Connor, Scotland Against Spin
• Suzanne McIntosh, Sir Frank Mears Associates and Association of Mediators

Apologies 

• David Wood, Planning Aid Scotland  
• Alan Farquhar, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)

Items and actions

Welcome

Scott Ferrie welcomes everyone, and attendees are invited to introduce themselves if they are new to the stakeholder meeting.

Minutes of Last meeting and matters arising

Scott Ferrie asks if there are any comments about the June stakeholder forum minuets. Stakeholders confirm that they have no comments. 

DPEA update and resourcing

Martyn Connolly informs the group that there currently nearly 800 live cases, which is expected to rise to more than 1000 over the next few months. There are typically 200 – 220 live cases, the increase is putting a strain on reporter and caseworker resources. 

Due to the extra income from the energy consents fee income 8 reporters have been recruited (though some of these are replacing reporters who have retired), the biggest single intake DPEA have taken. New reporters will need to be trained and settle in before the impact of the recruitment is felt.

The casework team also has new members joining them soon which will help ease the pressure on them.
Due to the pressures, it has become essential to prioritise certain case categories. Ministers have been made aware of this. This, and lack of reporter resources, has led to some cases being stacked until they can be allocated to a reporter.

Cases are currently being prioritised in the following order:

1. ASTI 
2. Energy related cases, housing appeals, LDP gatechecks 
3. Other appeals that are not short term lets (STL)
4. STLs

STLs are the cases most commonly stacked and are being assigned to a reporter when there is availability.
There is limited overtime being worked to help reduce the need for stacking cases however, managers are aware of ensuring staff wellbeing by limiting the number of overtime hours worked. 

Mid-year stats

Martyn Connolly explains to the group that from April to September 2025 there were 538 cases received, in the previous year that number was 533. There were 209 cases in hand at the start of April 2025 which rose to 325 by September. This morning there were 790 cases in hand which is a significant increase from the previous year where there were 220. 

There are 141 planning cases which is in line with previous years. 172 STL which has reduced from 262 the previous year. Necessary wayleave cases have risen to 143 from the previous year’s 12. Another 500-600 wayleave cases are expected alongside further student accommodation cases and windfarm cases. 

46% of planning appeals were allowed and 26% of delegated appeals were allowed, broadly consistent with previous years. 

 There has been a strong performance in meeting ministerial targets despite the workload pressures:

• 94% of site inspection/no further procedure cases have been determined within the 12-week target. The current average period to determine such cases is 9.7 weeks.
• 87% of further written submission cases were determined within their target.
• 40% of hearing cases determined within their target.

Clare Symonds asks if there are figures on the number of appeals allowed, if the outcomes are measured to achieve better planning decisions and if development on the ground is monitored. 

Martyn Connolly responds that 26% of planning applications are allowed and that the statistics will be circulated.

Scott Ferrie adds that DPEA do not monitor the outcome of a case ‘on the ground’ following the appeal decision, but DPEA always intends to prevent unsatisfactory development. Reporters do reflect on their casework and the decisions that they have made. 

Clare Symonds responds that the biodiversity conditions are not being adhered to and that they would like to see some monitoring on if the conditions are being met.

Scott Ferrie informs the attendees that the planning authority is responsible for monitoring if planning conditions are being adhered to.

Rachel Connor confirms that she has taken up the issue of planning conditions and the enforcement of breaches with her local council who informed her that enforcement of perceived breaches is discretionary. She feels that due to financial constraints the council will not have the resources to enforce a breach and that reporters cannot rely on planning conditions when making a decision because of this.

Electricity Act casework

David Liddell shares details of electricity act cases over the last year. The gross average to report on these has been 50.25 weeks to report, with the net average (taking into account sists of cases) is 47.25 weeks. The target is 50 weeks.

There are currently 16 S36 windfarm cases with DPEA, and these take up a significant amount of DPEA resource. There has been an increase in S36 cases this year and quite a few have been received over the past few months. Two cases will miss the target date which demonstrates the limited resources that DPEA currently have. There are currently seven battery energy storage cases (two applications, five planning appeals), six wind farm planning appeals (plus one called-in application), two solar farm planning appeals, and one pumped storage application. 

There are five ASTI projects at present. Energy consents are processing two for the projects as they are for existing lines and three are expected to come to DPEA for public inquiries to be held. Minsters can choose to hold a public inquiry for any of the cases. 

DPEA expects around 800 necessary wayleaves to be needed for the ASTI projects, 15-20 compulsive purchase order (CPO) inquires and possible sub-station planning appeals as SSEN are looking to acquire land.

Trudi Craggs shares that the necessary wayleaves cover more than the section 37 projects.

Consequential wayleaves may result in an additional 200-300 cases over the next year. Many cases are withdrawn which is wasteful in terms of reporter resource, so it has been built into the process that reporters are not allocated to a case until week 14 to allow parties to continue to negotiate and reach agreement. This also allows DPEA to write to all parties involved and to receive written statements and allows the parties a chance to decide if they wish to have a hearing.

There is now a dedicated team of case officers for the ASTI cases.

Trudi Craggs asks for comments and feedback on the new document management process. There was none.

Clare Symonds asks if DPEA could provide us information about how policies 3 and 6 of NPF4 have been applied by reporters in appeals made since 2023 and what training the DPEA reporters have received regarding biodiversity policies including bodiversity net gain.

David Liddell tells the meeting that reporters have not received any bespoke training on biodiversity but have attended training events at locations such as Flanders Moss held by NatureScot. 
In regard to the policy question David Liddell advises that Clare should view the decisions and reports available on the DPEA website, as each case is determined by the reporter on its merits.

Clare Symonds has asked the government that training on biodiversity be included in the hub and resources made available. She expresses that she does not see biodiversity being given significant weight in decisions and asks how reporters are interpreting biodiversity policy. 

David Liddell responds that if NPF4 requires biodiversity to be given a significant weight then that is what the reporters will do but that each individual decision or recommendation is based on the factors in play at the time and the reporter will use their own judgement about how these facts come into play .

Clare Symonds feels that there is a lot of weight being placed on planning conditions for protecting biodiversity and would like more weight being given to considering refusing an application because of its impact on biodiversity and nature.

David Liddell replies that DPEA we will keep an eye on the hub and are open to all training opportunities. 

Esme Clelland shares that this relates to her question (are there any implications of the UK planning and Infrastructure Bill/Act on the DPEA's work /inquiries in relation to energy consents? Is there any information given as to any guidance that might follow this when the Bill becomes law).

She continues that ScotLink has concerns and ongoing discussions with energy consents unit surrounding how conditions are applied. Policy 11 was cited by the applicants however, policy 3 was not. She feels that people are able to pick and choose what is applied. 

Esme Clelland asks for clarity on how biodiversity enhancement is considered and if there is any specific guidance on what to do or what not to do, or when conditions could not be used. 

David Liddell acknowledges that sometimes people do pick and choose what policies they raise with DPEA as they will present the case in the way that they want to. Other parties are able to raise their concerns about adherence to policies not initially mentioned but the reporter should also pick up on if a clearly relevant policy anyway. 

David Liddell continues that he picked up the issue of the use of a condition to secure biodiversity enhancement at the last meeting with energy consents following that meeting. DPEA are making decisions and reports based on what is stated in NPF4.

David Law shares that traditionally to mitigate the impacts of windfarms section 75 agreement would be used, which can be more laborious. Presently conditions are used in place of a section 75 agreement. He asks if section 75 agreements need to be used again. He continues that he read that planning obligations should not be used to extract advantages, benefits, or payments from landowners or developers. He suggests that this could be interpreted as securing enhancements which is an advantage or a benefit rather than something that is necessary to mitigate impact.

Esme Clelland adds if there are things which energy consent units does not think can be secured by conditions should we be going back to section 75? Esme acknowledges that there can be issues if you are securing measures which are outlined outside of the redline boundary. 

David Liddell responds that DPEA have not seen anything suggesting that you cannot use a condition to secure or to require works that take place out with the application boundary, and notes that a suspensive condition can sometimes be used. David recognises the problem of enforcing against the owner of land which is divorced from the development site. A section 75 agreement may sometimes be needed. 

In reference to securing enhancement being interpreted as an advantage or a benefit rather than something that is necessary to mitigate impact, David explains that reporters will follow NPF4, where policy requires biodiversity enhancement to be secured. The wording of the new circular on planning obligations should not be taken as being contrary to that policy objective.

Trudi Craggs adds that conditions are used to make the development acceptable, enhancement is not necessarily an ad hoc benefit as it may be linked to the acceptability of the proposal. It is necessary to make that development acceptable in policy terms. 

David Law asks if DPEA should ask energy consents unit for clarification.

David Liddell responds that DPEA have discussed it with energy consents unit already, and are applying what is stated in NPF4. 

Rachel Connor asks why can something so important not be put into a section 75 agreement?

Trudi Craggs responds that a hierarchy is in place and conditions are used first and if that method is not sufficient then a section 75 can be used.

Esme Clelland adds that she thinks that the Scottish Government guidance is clear that section 75 should not be used unless necessary and although it is a legal agreement it would still need to be enforced. 

Esme Clelland also flags that resources in many organisations were not able to increase in relation to the increase in applications and consultations, therefore often limiting them from being involved in issues on biodiversity in all cases as they need to prioritise.

Aileen Jackson’ question is raised “On 8 December, NESO published its long-awaited plan for culling zombie applications from the grid connections queue. What's the situation for onshore windfarms? - Scotland is already above target. Will the NESO/OFGEM announcements be urgently incorporated into the planning/consenting systems such that the issues became material considerations in the determination of applications?”

David Liddell responds that it is a matter Aileen should take up with PARD in terms of any statement about this subject. DPEA have to follow current policies.

Esme Clelland’s agenda item is raised. “It would be really useful if any implications of the UK Planning and Infrastructure bill/act on the DPEA's work /inquiries in relation to energy Consents could be set out at the meeting (if known) and information given as to any guidance that might follow this when the bill becomes law.”

Bruce Walker had to leave the meeting. 

DPEA will be talking to energy consents unit to get clarity on the implementation of the Act’s provisions.

Gatecheck update

Allision Coard begins with informing the group that 21 gatechecks have been carried out, from a total of 16 planning authorities. The gatecheck process is to examine the evidence report and decide if its sufficient. If sufficient the planning authority can continue to prepare its local development plans. If it is not sufficient it is returned, with recommendations. Only seven have passed so far, the remainder have had their evidence reports returned. Housing and infrastructure are the key causes for this as these are assessed against NPF4. 

Return rates have increased which will delay progress with the development plan process. 

Suzanne McIntosh asks what has been the biggest reason in terms of housing and infrastructure?

Allision Coard responds that the evidence has not be robust or credible enough when calculating the housing land requirement. In addition, the link between housing requirement and infrastructure that is required requires clearer evidence.

Passes and returns can be reviewed on the DPEA website.

Bruce Walker’s question on “The outcome of the joint DPEA/HOPS/SG meeting on gatechecks” is raised.

Allison Coard advises the meeting that a meeting between colleagues in Victoria Quay, Heads of Planning, and DPEA was held surrounding progress of gatechecks. Potential review of guidance is being considered or support to planning authorities through the improvement hub. 

Agenda items submitted by stakeholders

All agenda items submitted were covered within the previous agenda items. 

Any other business

Scott wishes everyone a happy christmas and new year.