5. Investing in Planning - A consultation on resourcing Scotland’s planning system - Report
Renfrewshire Council · 28 May 2024
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 28 May 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 28 May 2024 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Investing in Planning: A consultation on resourcing Scotland’s planning system ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The Scottish Government has recently published a consultation on resourcing Scotland’s planning system. 1.2 The consultation document sets out a range of options which seek to improve the capacity of the Scottish planning system and planning authorities. 1.3 The consultation seeks views on a range of issues including planning fees, increasing discretionary charging and resourcing other parts of the planning system. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board: Note that The Scottish Government have published a consultation on resourcing Scotland’s planning system. Agree that the draft response as detailed is submitted as the response from Renfrewshire Council. _________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Government is undertaking a consultation in respect of resourcing the planning system in Scotland with a view to ensuring that planning authorities are financially resourced to deliver future ambitions.
Page 2
3.2 The consultation document acknowledges that local authorities continue to face financial challenges and notes that Skills Development Scotland have identified that 550-600 planners would be required to meet replacement demand across Scotland due to expected retirements, while 130 additional planners would be required to cover a projected 11% growth in the planning sector up to 2030. 3.3 The consultation seeks views from stakeholders to ensure the planning system is equipped to deal with current and future challenges. 4. Issues Considered 4.1 The consultation document seeks views on the following issues: Proportionality Certainty Streamlining, alignment and standardisation Skills, recruitment and retention A Planning Hub Annual inflationary increase to planning fees Locally set planning fees Increasing discretionary charging Fee for proposals on unallocated sites Masterplan Consent Areas Fees for planning appeals Digital service charge Energy generation Shellfish farming Cumulative impact 4.2 The consultation paper can be viewed at https://www.gov.scot/publications/investing-planning-consultation-resourcing- scotlands-planning-system/documents/. 4.3 Officers have reviewed the consultation document and have drafted responses to the question posed. The draft responses are detailed in Appendix 1. 5. Next Steps 5.1 It is recommended that the Board agree the response as detailed in Appendix 1 is submitted in advance of the submission deadline as the response from Renfrewshire Council. ___________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial – None. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None.
Page 3
3. Community/Council Planning – the consultation document outlines potential changes to how the planning system would be resourced which may have an impact on the council and local communities. 4. Legal – None. 5. Property/Assets – None. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights - The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Cosla Policy Position – None. 13. Climate Risk – Not Applicable. ___________________________________________________________________ Author: David Love, Chief Planning Officer. Tel: 07483410182; Email: david.love@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 4
APPENDIX 1 – DRAFT RESPONSE Question 1: Which assessments might benefit most from improved proportionality? It is considered that providing a definitive list of assessments which might benefit most from proportionality is difficult given that each development proposal and the related site is different and considerations require to be undertaken on a case by case basis in order to ensure the nature of the proposed development and the site in question is fully considered and evaluated. It is considered that early pre-application discussions between the applicant and Planning Authority can assist in considering the proposal and site in question and therefore allow for proportionality to be considered on a case by case basis. Question 2: To what extent do you agree that processing agreements are an effective tool for creating certainty in planning decision making timescales? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view Processing agreements can provide some level of certainty in relation to decision making timescales and can be effective where both parties seek to adhere to any agreement. Processing agreements are often amended throughout the consideration of an application to reflect changing circumstances and can help offer some degree of certainty to both applicant and officers. Question 3: Do you consider that current resourcing issues are impacting on the use of processing agreements? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view Focus is primarily given to the consideration and determination of applications and as such the administration and time required to create and/or update processing agreements often create additional pressures which can have an impact on their use. Question 4: Would you be prepared to pay a discretionary fee to enter into a processing agreement? Yes | No view | No Please explain your view This question is best answered by those submitting planning applications and not by planning authorities, however it should be noted that attaching a discretionary fee to a processing agreement may increase expectations on planning authorities and does not provide any guarantee to achieving a determination target date for the application,
Page 5
given circumstances may change and unforeseen issues be highlighted during the consideration of any application. Question 5: What additional actions can we take to improve certainty in the planning process? Certainty can be interpreted in a variety of ways and the ability of planning authorities to consider valid applications could be improved. The submission of valid applications at the outset would reduce delays, allow early consideration of the proposed development and help ensure certainty is provided. Question 6: Do you have further ideas on opportunities for streamlining, alignment or standardisation? The use of Section 75 templates would assist where they are applicable. In addition, consideration of different Reports of Handling for householder and other application types may help streamline the process and improve efficiency. Question 7: Are there any skills actions which you think should be prioritised? Greater resources would have the biggest impact and would help provide planning authorities with the capacity to undertake ongoing professional development in a structured manner. Specialist officers with a focus on particular issues would assist in considering and scrutinising development proposals. Officers with expertise in drainage, biodiversity, trees, historic environment etc would be a great asset to planning authorities. Question 8: Are there any skills actions not identified which you think would make a significant impact? We are supportive of the actions being undertaken and would suggest further opportunities for planners to upskill in relation to related disciples may also assist in improving the overall system. Question 9: Do you think that the concept of a ‘planning hub’, modelled on the Building Standards Hub would support authorities and deliver improvement in the system? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view A Planning Hub could potentially help support and assist planning authorities especially in relation to particular subject areas. We would however note concern in relation to how any such hub would operate and be financed. The proposed Hub could potentially attract staff resources away from planning authorities therefore having a detrimental impact, while we would question how resources and workload would be
Page 6
allocated between authorities? The provision of a Hub would also require financial investment which would be a burden on planning authorities should they be asked to contribute to a share of the costs. The performance of the Hub should also be considered given it could have an impact on the performance of planning authorities who are seeking support. Question 10: Are there other ways a hub could add value and provide support in the short and longer term? A Planning Hub could help support standardisation across authorities in some cases. Question 11: Which of the options do you think is most suitable, and why? i. Within Scottish Government ii. Within public organisation iii. Within a host authority iv. Other v. No view The Improvement Service or other such body would be most suitable thus giving some distance from Scottish Government and not being seen to be hosted by one authority where it may be perceived favourable treatment is provided. Question 12: How do you think a Planning Hub could be resourced? Additional funding and a commitment from central government would be required. Question 13: Do you agree that planning fees should increase annually in line with inflation? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view Costs of running the planning service continually increase and therefore an annual increase in line with inflation would be reasonable and justified. Question 14: Is a calculation based on the 12 month Consumer Price Index the most appropriate mechanism? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view We are supportive of this mechanism.
Page 7
Question 15: Should an annual inflationary increase apply to: i. Individual fees and increments ii. Individual fees, increments and maximums iii. No view Question 16: What would be your preferred approach to how planning fees are set in the future? Fees should continue to be set at a national level. Question 17: Are there key principles which should be set out in the event that fee setting powers are devolved to planning authorities? Although disagreeing with fees being devolved to planning authorities, should they be introduced key principles such a maximum/minimum fees should be set out by the Scottish Government. Question 18: What other processes that support the determination of a planning application could authorities be given powers to charge at their discretion? Fees could be applied to EIA screening and scoping opinions on a discretionary basis. Question 19: Do think the circumstances where a refund can be requested is set out as part of any published information regarding the introduction of a discretionary charge? Should refunds be considered, it is suggested that specific circumstances would require to be outlined at a national level. In addition, the level of such refund should also be set nationally. Question 20: Do you agree with the principle that authorities should have discretionary powers to increase fees for a proposal on an unallocated site within the development plan? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view There is merit in an increased fee being attached to development proposals where the site in question is unallocated. It is however considered that such an increase should be set at a national level either depending on the proposal or a percentage increase of the fee as would be applied at the time of submission.
Page 8
Question 21: Do you agree that planning authorities should be able to recoup the costs of preparing a Masterplan Consent Area through discretionary charging? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view The Planning Authority should have the ability to recoup costs associated with the preparation of a masterplan consent area. Question 22: Do you agree with the types of appeals that should incur a fee? Yes | no view | No Please explain your view It is considered that a fee should also apply to an appeal in relation to the non- determination of an application. If no fee is applicable, this may encourage applicants to submit an appeal at the earliest opportunity should they consider that a refusal to the planning application is likely. Question 23: Do you agree that setting the fee for applying to appeal the refusal of planning permission (to either DPEA or the planning authority) is set as a percentage of the original planning application fee? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view It is considered that a percentage of the planning application fee seems a reasonable way in which to calculate any fee associated with the appeal. We would however suggest that a minimum fee is applied given that where a small planning fee is applied any appeal fee is likely to be minimal and make little impact in recovering partial costs associated with the processing and consideration of the appeal. Question 24: If a percentage of fee approach to appeal charging was considered most appropriate, what level do you consider would be most appropriate to reflect volume of work by DPEA or the LRB? 10% | 20% | 30% | 40% | No view | Other Please explain your view 20% with the inclusion of a minimum fee of £150. Question 25: Do you agree that an authority should consider waiving or reducing an appeal fee where they have offered such a waiver on the related planning application? Strongly agree | Partially agree | No view | Partially disagree | Strongly disagree Please explain your view
Page 9
Costs are incurred in processing and considering an appeal. In addition, it is considered that there should be consistency in any waiver applied no matter if the appeal is dealt with by DPEA or the Local Review Body. Question 26: Do you have views on how a service charge for applying for planning permission or a building warrant online could be applied? A percentage of the application could be applied. Question 27: What other options are there to resource the operation and improvement of the eDevelopment service? Direct support from central government. Question 28: Should the current threshold of 50MW for applications for electricity generation which are to be determined by authorities be altered? Yes | No view | No Please explain your view A change in such thresholds would likely place further pressures on planning authorities. Question 29: Should different thresholds apply to different types of generating stations? Yes | No view | No Please explain your view Differing thresholds may create confusion. Question 30: What would be the resource implications of increasing the threshold for the determination of applications for onshore electricity generating stations? Planning authorities would likely see an increase in workload, while some authorities would lack the expertise to consider onshore electricity generating stations. Question 31: If Scottish Government were to make a voluntary contribution equivalent to a percentage of the offshore electricity fee to authorities, what level of contribution would be appropriate to support some recovery of costs? Please provide justification for your answer. In terms of consistency, the same voluntary contribution as applied to onshore proposals should apply.
Page 10
Question 32: Should we introduce a new category of development for applications for hydrogen projects? If so, how should these fees be set/calculated? Yes | No view | No Please explain your view Any introduction of fees should be based on the generation/storage capacities etc. Question 33: Are there different considerations for hydrogen production when compared with proposals which are concerned only with storage and distribution? Yes | No view | No Please explain your view Question 34: Do you agree that the standard £100 which applies to most prior notification and approval applications is appropriate? Yes | No view | No Please explain your view In most cases such submission take time to consider and process and as such the fee should be increased. Question 35: Are there particular PDR classes where you think the current fee should be amended? If so, please explain why that is considered to be the case. 33 Question 36: Would a reduction of the current fee (£200 per 0.1 hectare) be an appropriate approach to resolving this issue? No comment Question 37: What would you consider to be a reasonable fee for shellfish farm applications? (Please elaborate on your answer using an average shellfish farm development (5 x 220m twin-headline longlines at 20m spacing with 30m end moorings) as an example.) No comment Question 38: Which proposal would you most like to see implemented? Please explain the reason for your answer.
Page 11
Annual fee increases based upon set index in order to keep costs in line with raising costs elsewhere. Question 39: Do you have other comments on the cumulative impact of the proposals? None. Question 40: Do you have other ideas to help resource the planning system? Please set out how you think the proposal could be resourced. Greater support in relation to new entrants into the profession with reduced costs associated with higher education courses with consideration given to Scottish Government funding places. In addition to the above, we would also suggest that the infrastructure levy, as included in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 should be brought forward by the Scottish Government and fully enacted. The introduction of such a levy would assist and contribute to funding local infrastructure which would help support communities and local people. Question 41: Please provide any information on the potential impacts of our proposals to assist with preparation of the following impact assessments: Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment Equality Impact Assessment Islands Communities Impact Assessment Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment Fairer Scotland Duty Strategic Environmental Assessment No comment