Planning and Environmental Appeals Stakeholder Forum Minutes: June 2026

Attendees and apologies

DPEA Attendees

Scott Ferrie, Joint Chief Reporter Planning and Environmental Appeals

Trudi Craggs, Joint Chief Reporter Planning and Environmental Appeals

Ryan Gunn, Head of Delivery

Allison Coard, Assistant Chief Reporter

Robert Seaton, Assistant Chief Reporter

Sonya Thomas, Business Support Officer

 

Stakeholders  Attendees

Aileen Jackson, Scotland Against Spin

Alan Innes, Scottish Planning, Local Government and Environmental Law Bar Group

Alasdair Mckenzie, Historic Environment Scotland

Alison Wilson, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)

Anne Krippler, Planning Aid Scotland

Bruce Walker, Homes for Scotland

Clare Symonds, Planning Democracy 

David Law, NatureScot

Esme Clelland, Scottish Environment Link

Finn Watkins, Homes for Scotland

Fraser Gillies, Wright Johnstone Mackenzie

Jenny Munro, Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland (RTPI)

Joe Dagen, Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland

John Esslemont, Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland (APRS)

Megan Amundson, Scottish Renewables

Michael Greig, Law Society of Scotland

Rachel Connor, Scotland Against Spin

Suzanne McIntosh, Sir Frank Mears Associates and Association of Mediators

Victoria Clements, Historic Environment Scotland

 

Apologies 

David Liddell, Assistant Chief Reporter

Items and actions

Welcome

Scott Ferrie - welcomed everyone, announced his partial retirement and Trudi Craggs was introduced as the new Joint Chief Reporter. Ryan Gunn was introduced as the new Head of Delivery, replacing Martyn Connolly who is on temporary promotion. Attendees were invited to introduce themselves.  

All at DPEA were sorry to hear of the passing of Alastair McKie who was an active stakeholder and a valued and respected colleague for many years. 

Minutes of Last Meeting and Matters Arising

No matters arising.
Scott Ferrie confirmed that Rachel Conner’s question surrounding pathways and EIA requirements will be covered in the agenda item Electricity Act Casework.

DPEA Update and Resourcing 

DPEA is currently experiencing a 600% increase in workload. Staffing has been increased however not a rate which can match the workload increase.
ASTI 36 and 37 cases alongside CPOs and LDP gatechecks have increased in number and are resource intensive. For SEPA alone there are 169 appeals.
There are still a very higher number of short term let (STL) appeals, with DPEA finding that the same property will be seen over different appeal types.
Performance against targets is expected to dip in the current reporting period, although DPEA are performing better than anticipated so far.
In the event that there is insufficient reporter availability certain casework will now be prioritised as listed below. Any cases which cannot be assigned will be stacked for the next allocation cycle. Section 36 renewable appeals may have to be stacked in the future, currently it is only general appeals and STL appeals which have been stacked.
•    ASTI
•    Housing appeals and LDP Gatecheck
•    Renewables 
•    General appeals
•    STL appeals
Megan Amundson - asked for the definition of stacking.
Scott Ferrie - clarified that stacking means to not allocate a case as soon as it is ready for allocation, which has until now been DPEA practice. The allocations occur every 2 weeks and if there is no reporter availability then the case is stacked for the next allocation meeting 2 weeks later. In some cases, the STL appeals have been allocated a month late which could have an impact on a reporter meeting the 12 week target due to the lost time.
Senior managers had met with Energy Consents Unit (ECU) who advised that case numbers in the pipeline and likely to be passed to DPEA were significantly higher than expected.
Michael Greig - asked how long DPEA expects the stacking of cases and the higher workload to last, and if this is a peak or expected for the longer term.
Scott Ferrie - responded that DPEA expects the peak to last at least for the coming year. Originally DPEA were expecting to have concluded the peak by the end of the financial year after completing the section 37 and wayleave cases, however this is no longer the case as CPOs (compulsory purchase orders) have not yet been submitted to ECU meaning that they will not be concluded by the end of this financial year. DPEA does not expect to be in a normal position this time next year because of this. 
9 new reporters have joined recently, 4 new posts and 5 backfill posts. Partly paid for by fee income transfer from ECU. Another new reporter is expected to join DPEA in July. 2 new consultant reporters have recently joined the team bringing the total to 8. This is a historically low number for DPEA however most of the current consultant reporters are working full time for DPEA. 
Within the casework and IT team there has been a high turnover of staff however the team should be back to full staffing within the coming months. The casework and IT team are currently facing a very high caseload. 

End of Year Stats

Ryan Gunn -  the high-level headlines for DPEA statistics from 1st April 2025 – 31st March 2026.
1795 cases were received in 25/26, which was an increase of 781 cases (increase of 77%), 719 of these were delegated cases. 
In 25/26 there were 60 reports submitted, an increase from 45 in 24/25 (increase of 33%). At the end of March 2026 there were 979 cases in hand. 
In terms of performance 87.25% written submissions have met the 12-week target with an average of 10.5 weeks taken. 
85.71% of further written submissions have met their 20-week target with an average of 19.2 weeks taken, and 57.14% of hearings have met their 40-week target with an average of 41.5 weeks taken. 
Ryan Gunn - acknowledged that it is a busy period not only for reporters and casework team but also ministers and stakeholders. 
Megan Amundson - asked if the number of wayleave cases have increased due to energy related cases.
Trudi Craggs - responded that around 95% are linked to ASTI cases. 
Ryan Gunn - added that in the year 24/25 there were 10 wayleave cases and in 25/26 this increased to 963.
Esme Clelland - raised that the increased number of cases is impacting stakeholders negatively. Stakeholders are struggling to engage with the process and meet the timescales due to the increase in case numbers.
Ryan Gunn - acknowledged this and acknowledged that DPEA will remain mindful of engaging with stakeholders throughout the process. 
Trudi Craggs - added that DPEA are aware of the pressure stakeholders are facing.
Finn Watkins - asked how many appeals were lodged before the appeal fees were introduced. 
Scott Ferrie - shared that the appeal fees were introduced on the 9th June 2025 so cases in April and May wouldn’t have faced fees.
Trudi Craggs - added that they haven’t seen a change in case numbers due to fees and that cases such as wayleaves are not subject to fees but that they will gather the data on this and share it with stakeholders later.
Michael Greig - asked about the success rates of delegated appeals as they have decreased to 40%.
Scott Ferrie - clarified that STL appeals are rarely successful and are pulling down the overall success rate.
Michael Greig - asked if stats can be made available excluding STL appeals 
Scott Ferrie - agrees to try and get this stat publishing in future annual reviews. 
Michael Greig - asked if the guidance on evidence reports is improving the success rates for Gatechecks.
Allison Coard - responded that it’s likely due to both the guidance and authorities gaining experience of the process.  

Gatecheck Update

Allison Coard - provided an overview of Gatechecks. 34 planning authorities are expected to produce a new style of local development plan by May 2028. The first step authorities take will be preparing an evidence report. The assessment of these reports is known as a Gatecheck. 
DPEA is responsible for deciding whether the report submitted by planning authorities is sufficient and passes to the next stage of the process. The first submission was received in spring 2024. 
12 local authorities have had their evidence report determined as sufficient. Nine reports passed on their first submission with three reports requiring resubmission before passing. Currently there are seven reports DPEA have returned and are waiting for these to be resubmitted. Four cases are currently in hand and there is optimism that the new guidance will speed up the Gatecheck process. 
By 2027 it is expected that 30 planning authorities will have submitted their evidence reports with the remaining four expected to be submitted in January 2027. DPEA aims for all Gatechecks to have been completed by March 2027. DPEA have given themselves a three-month self-imposed target for Gatechecks, there have been delays in reaching this target recently. Once Gatechecks have been completed the examination process will begin. This is expected to be extremely reporter resource intensive. 
Bruce Walker - shared that HfS estimate only 10 planning authorities will meet the May 2028 target.
Allison Coard - shared that DPEA are liaising with PARD surrounding resource planning and confirms that the May 2028 target may not be met.
Scott Ferrie - added that PARD are interested in how they can help planning authorities meet the May 2028 target. 
Allison Coard - confirmed that training is being conducted to help reduce delays.
Bruce Walker - asked if household projection will influence the Gatecheck process and adds that South Lanarkshire was allowed to pass without the new housing numbers being considered.
Allison Coard - responded that DPEA gave planning authorities the opportunity to consider the new household projections and were willing to return the evidence reports, most chose not to resubmit. The ones which have been assessed recently were looking at the indicative housing requirement. DPEA can take in new evidence along the process. 
DPEA are hopeful that the new housing projections will not cause delays because although new figures will need to be considered the methodology and approach will be established.
John Esslemont - asked if any of the reports would be an example of good practise.
Allison Coard - shared that all have had different strengths, a common issue is that the reports could be made more succinct and that Falkirk is an example of a good concise report.
Alasdair Mckenzie - shared that some authorities are reinterpreting NPF4 polices and it is not clear why. He also shares that it is surprising that they are having to look at development management policies and originally thought the focus would be on place rather than policy.
Allison Coard - responded that some planning authorities are adding local evidence to reinterpret the policies and although guidance sought to minimise this there is nothing legislative to prevent them from doing so.

Electricity Act Casework

Trudi Craggs - provided an update on ASTI cases. Three ASTI section 37 cases are currently with DPEA alongside some windfarm and battery storage section 36 cases.
Two further section 37 cases have come through connections for wind farms that have consent. The Wull Muir (Raeshaw) judgement has inevitably caused a delay with current DPEA casework. 
Robert Seaton - provided a summary on the Wull Muir Wind Farm case.
Alasdair McKenzie left the meeting.  
The reporter’s decision on the Wull Muir windfarm case was quashed by the court. An issue had been raised of whether the grid connection should have been treated as part of the wind farm project for the environmental impact assessment even though the application did not seek consent for the grid connection.  
The court found that determining this question was a matter of judgment for the reporter and before making the judgement the reporter should make a fact specific evaluation of the proposal. Failure to do so was a material error in the decision and the decision to grant permission was consequently quashed. 
In cases which involve an application for a generating station the reporter will now have to make a judgement as to whether the grid connection is part of the project. Where reporters are reporting to ministers their recommendation will generally have to include a recommendation as to the judgement ministers should make on where the grid connection is part of the project.
Reporters must be consistent with each other in their decisions. A determination by a reporter on whether a grid connection is part of a project or generation station is likely to be material consideration for a reporter on another case. If a grid connection is found to be part of a generating station, then it will be required to be assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment.
Significant effects of a project should be assessed at the earliest stage. If the grid connection is deemed part of the project, then an assessment should be carried out, even if only high level. If the effects cannot be fully assessed at the time of application, then any permission granted would be subject to a multistage condition. This condition would have to prevent all parts of the project from proceeding until the grid connection has been approved. 
Reporters will be able to ask for a high-level assessment of the grid connection in combination with the proposed generation station, even if they judge the grid connection to not be part of the generating station.
Rachel Connor - added that she has contacted NESO, and they have advised that it is difficult for applications to get a connection date before 2035. She expressed concern that this would make it difficult to assess the environmental impacts of the grid connections due to the difficulty in predicting environment impact 10 years in advance.
Robert Seaton - replied that until the details of the grid connection had been approved, the grant of permission would not be able to be implemented. 
Rachel Connor - added that it is important that all information related to the project is presented at the application stage and that an EIA related to that connection date should be provided.
Fraser Gillies - asked if wording is being developed to provide a consistent approach to multistage conditions.
Robert Seaton - responded that there is a suggested form. Where the issue of the form of the condition hasn’t already been squarely raised in a case, it would need to be put to parties. 
Another issue with section 36 applications: in the relevant environmental impact assessment regulations, there is an option to attach multistage conditions to the electricity act consent or the deemed planning permission. Having a condition requiring consent of the details of the grid connection wouldn’t obviate need for separate development consent for the grid connection.  
Fraser Gillies - thinks that this highlights the challenge of drafting an appropriate condition.
Alan Innes asked what effect DPEA’s limited resources combined with the volume of section 36 applications will have and how it will be managed.
Robert Seaton - replied that it is the responsibility of the applicant to carry out the consultation however reporters will have to deal with the additional information that is submitted.
Scott Ferrie - added that reporters can be reallocated to other cases whilst consultations are ongoing for their previously allocated cases to utilise that case’s consultation period.
Trudi Craggs - continued that reporters now plan out their work programme for a 12-month period rather than the previous 6 to allow managers to see impacts on availability over a longer period to better understand workload and identify gaps.
Alan Innes - asked if section 36 cases which come back will be subject to stacking.
Trudi Craggs - responded they would not generally go back through the allocation process but may need to if the appointed reporter is busy with other casework.
Esme Clelland - noted that is important these conversations are happening and to recognise connections alongside windfarms due to previous cases of windfarms being built and the only connection option available being through sensitive areas. 
Clare Symonds and Alastair McKenzie left the meeting.

Further  Electricity Act Casework 

Trudi Craggs - provided an update on general electricity act casework. Most of the wayleave cases will be through the oral process by the end of winter although DPEA are still waiting for the CPOs so the scale is currently unknown.
Regarding the update on implementation of the Planning and Infrastructure (P&I) Act most cases are currently progressing under the old process and newer cases which would fall into that are delayed. DPEA are looking at updating the code of practice, which will be circulated to stakeholders for feedback before it is finalised and published.
Aileen Jackson - asked if DPEA anticipated there would be any difference in the way wind farms and OHL inquiries would be handled under the new regime for Inquiries announced in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.  Megan Amundson asked if DPEA can confirm that regulations won't be necessary.
Scott Ferrie - replied that a consultation on the code of practise is expected in the summer of 2026 and it can’t be confirmed until the code or practice is updated, however it is not currently anticipated to be needed for the examination part of the process.
Alieen Jackson and Rachel Connor - asked a question surrounding the transparency of document rejection on objective connect. 
Rachel Connor - shared that they’ve had feedback on objective connect being difficult to use and that people are having difficulties learning how it works. People feel that objective connect is being used to prejudge what is significant before it is uploaded to the website or seen by a reporter and that this is being conducted without people’s knowledge. Third parties feel this potentially disadvantages them at inquiry level.
Trudi Craggs - confirmed that objective connect is used to prevent issues with submitting and receiving large files. Its secondary purpose has been to allow parties to upload documents in advance. DPEA were unaware of people having difficulties with objective connect. 
In relation to documents not being uploaded the reporter will set out during the PEM what matters need further evidence and what matters are sufficiently covered.  Documents should then be submitted based on what is relevant to the oral sessions. In cases where information irrelevant to the oral cases has been uploaded, reporters have made that clear to parties when such documents have rejected. 
Rachel Connor - clarified that people have been reporting that they are not being told the reason why their documents have been rejected and are concerned that local knowledge is being excluded without reason. They feel that they are submitting appropriate evidence which has been requested in the PEM. Instructions on how to use the site are also needed.
Trudi Craggs - confirmed that instructions can be developed and sent out to parties and the case officers are also available to help
Rachel Connor - raised concerns about planning conditions and how they are ineffective if local authorities do not enforce them. She expressed that in her experience local authorities seem to be more likely to enforce suspensive conditions and expressed that these should be used more often.  Residents are the people who are impacted by these planning conditions not being enforced. 
Rachel Connor - confirmed that she has raised this issue with numerous people with no meaningful results.
Esme Clelland - asked if anyone has experience of whether planning monitoring officers (PMO) have been useful.
Rachel Connor - responded that PMOs can be valuable to identify potential breaches of planning conditions and they can provide reports assessable to the public however, planning authorities often fail to act on the findings and stronger enforcement of planning conditions is needed.
Robert Seaton - acknowledged concerns about the enforcement of planning conditions but noted that enforcement decisions ultimately rest with planning authorities. Authorities are generally expected to follow their enforcement charters and suggested that those charters may be a useful reference point when considering how planning conditions are enforced.
Rachel Connor - argued that although local authorities have enforcement charters, they can still decide that certain planning conditions are not worth enforcing, often without providing any public justification for those decisions.
Robert Seaton - acknowledged concerns about the effectiveness of planning conditions. He noted that there are formal remedies available when authorities fail to act in accordance with their enforcement charters, including complaints to council chief executives, the Ombudsman in cases of maladministration, and potentially judicial review. Scottish ministers are unable to compel local authorities to enforce conditions.
Rachel Connor - expressed that judicial reviews are prohibitively expensive, Ombudsman investigations can take over a year after lengthy complaints procedures have been exhausted, and by that stage any nuisance or harm may have continued for years. She emphasised the need for greater public confidence that planning conditions are imposed for a reason and will be enforced in practice.
Trudi Craggs - acknowledged Rachel's frustrations and suggested that there are limitations to what DPEA can do within existing legislative framework, recommending discussion with Craig McLaren.
Suzanne Mclntosh - suggested that weak enforcement is often linked to under-resourcing within local authority planning departments. She recommended raising the issue of poor enforcement with Heads of Planning Scotland.
Anne Kripple -r added that Planning Aid Scotland has met a lot of members of the public who also raised concerns around planning conditions not being enforced. 

Any other business

Scott Ferrie - asked stakeholders if they would like to raise anything else.
Michael Greig - asked if there is a timescale for the consultation on the code of practice.
Scott Ferrie - replied that he hopes to have it out for consultation within the next month or so but this might be delayed due to the very high levels of casework ongoing. 
Scott Ferrie - thanked everyone for their input and reminded stakeholders that the next forum will be before the Christmas period.