Planning Reform

Briefing No. 81 May 2004 Reform of the Planning System

Introduction

The Scottish Executive's coalition agreement 'Partnership for a Better Scotland ' includes a number of commitments to reform the planning system. Planning delays have also been criticised by developers and on the reverse side of the coin by objectors who feel the system is not responsive to local concerns. In response the Executive has published two consultation papers on development plans and third party appeals. A Planning Bill is also likely later in this parliamentary session.

UNISON represents local authority planning staff. Other members have a direct interest in the system such as infrastructure providers in the water and energy service groups as well as a wider citizenship interest in promoting economic development and protecting the environment. This briefing outlines the current consultations and seeks views from members on the issues raised.

Making Development Plans Deliver

This consultation seeks views on the preparation of local development plans (LDPs) across Scotland and the detailed arrangements for strategic planning in the four main city regions.

Specifically, it seeks views on:

• Managing the plan process
• Consultation and engagement
• Content of the plans
• Ensuring effective delivery
• Local development plans and city region plans

The full consultation can be accessed on the Scottish Executive website at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/planning/mdpdc-00.asp

The paper argues there is a need to reform because development plans are often out of date. Of 131 local plans 70% were adopted more than five years ago and 20% are more than 15 years old. There appear to be a number of reasons for the delay in completing plans, not least the many objections from developers promoting their particular schemes. Local authorities are also moving towards single area plans that are likely to halve the number of development plans.

There are also increasing pressures on planning departments due to a 20% increase in the number of planning applications. Staffing numbers have remained largely unchanged for a decade and many departments are reporting staffing shortages. Despite this 83% of applications are decided within a period of three months against a target of 85%. The reasons for delay are not always within the control of planning departments. Poor applications, the need to reconcile differing community views and the increasing complexity of planning are important factors.

Planners come under equal pressure from developers who complain about a negative anti-development culture and objectors seeking to block development 'in their backyard'. As always public servants are caught in the middle!

Rights of Appeal in Planning

This consultation seeks views on whether new rights of appeal should be created for third parties. At present only applicants can appeal. And if so, how they might operate in practice.

In particular, it seeks views on:

The support for widening rights of appeal, extending rights to third parties, the role of Scottish ministers and the impact on the workload of planning authorities. The full consultation can be accessed on the Scottish Executive website at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/planning/rias-00.asp

In addition to this consultation, Sandra White MSP has a private members bill on the same issue. Other parliamentary activity includes motions from Donald Gorrie MSP on vetting developers and providing a right of appeal for local authorities against a Reporter's decision.

The supporters of third party appeals argue that the current system is unbalanced in favour of developers allowing no recourse for communities campaigning against unjust planning decisions. The focus of the planning system is the relationship between local authorities and developers rather than community groups and individuals. They point to the experience of Ireland where only 2.6% of applications have been appealed, many only seeking a design change.

Those against third party appeals argue that it would add further delays to the planning system, blocking essential economic development. The objectors would in the main be the NIMBY groups, unrepresentative of their local communities. It would also be undemocratic because councillors make these decisions as the elected representatives of the community. It would significantly add to the costs of development and place a further administrative burden on planning departments.

Whilst these two positions are polarised others argue for a middle way that includes limited rights of appeal linked with other reforms to the system.

Branch Action

Branches should promote discussion of these issues and take the opportunity to identify other concerns particularly from members closely involved in the current system.

• What are the real problems facing members in planning departments? Are they properly resourced, is the structure right, are sufficient staff being attracted into the profession?
• What changes to the development plans are necessary both to speed up the process and produce quality plans?
• How can the consultation process be improved and what is needed to deliver the plans?
• Can the application process be reformed to create space for third party appeals or is the idea wrong in principle?

Views to Dave Watson at the P&I Team in UNISON House d.watson@unison.co.uk

Further Information

The government in England rejected third party appeals but the House of Commons library produced a helpful summary of the arguments http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2002/rp02-038.pdf

Friends of the Earth http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/ for the case in favour of third party appeals.

The Royal Town Planning Institute http://www.scotland.rtpi.org.uk are broadly against third party appeals.