Questions To Be Considered
What is missing from the review?
- There is no mention of the environmental challenges we currently face and how planning can help to address these (apart from token permitted rights for cycle paths and micro generation). There is nothing to suggest that environmental protection is a function of the planning system and there are some concerning elements. For eg paragraph 1.37 on environmental assessment and reporting states it needs to be ‘proportional’ suggesting an impending reduction in requirements.
- Although it talks about delivering homes it is apparent that the priority is not to tackle the housing crisis, but to help developers build houses. The review provides no discussion about creating sustainable and good quality housing, social or affordable housing, nor does it look at what sector is going to deliver the housing. It is too focussed on housing as a number of completed units and not on how we can create high quality housing in well-planned places that improve people’s quality of life.
Here are the review questions should you wish to answer in detail.
- Do you agree that local development plans should be required to take account of community planning?
- Do you agree that strategic development plans should be replaced by improved regional partnership working?
2(a) How can planning add greatest value at a regional scale?
2(b) Which activities should be carried out at the national and regional levels?
2(c) Should regional activities take the form of duties or discretionary powers?
2(d) What is your view on the scale and geography of regional partnerships?
2(e) What role and responsibilities should Scottish Government, agencies, partners and stakeholders have within regional partnership working?
- Should the National Planning Framework (NPF), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) or both be given more weight in decision making?
3(a) Do you agree with our proposals to update the way in which the National Planning Framework (NPF) is prepared?
- Do you agree with our proposals to simplify the preparation of development plans?
4(a) Should the plan review cycle be lengthened to 10 years?
4(b) Should there be scope to review the plan between review cycles?
4(c) Should we remove supplementary guidance?
- Do you agree that local development plan examinations should be retained?
5(a) Should an early gatecheck be added to the process?
5(b) Who should be involved?
5(c) What matters should the gatecheck look at?
5(d) What matters should be the final examination look at?
5(e) Could professional mediation support the process of allocating land?
- Do you agree that an allocated site in a local development plan should not be afforded planning permission in principle?
- Do you agree that plans could be strengthened by the following measures:
7(a) Setting out the information required to accompany proposed allocations
7(b) Requiring information on the feasibility of the site to be provided
7(c) Increasing requirements for consultation for applications relating to non-allocated sites
7(d) Working with the key agencies so that where they agree to a site being included in the plan, they do not object to the principle of an application
- Do you agree that stronger delivery programmes could be used to drive delivery of development? 8(a) What should they include?
Do you agree that our proposed package of reforms will increase community involvement in planning? Please explain your answer.
- Should communities be given an opportunity to prepare their own local place plans?
9(a) Should these plans inform, or be informed by, the development requirements specified in the statutory development plan?
9(b) Does Figure 1 cover all of the relevant considerations?
- Should local authorities be given a new duty to consult community councils on preparing the statutory development plan?
10(a) Should local authorities be required to involve communities in the preparation of the Development Plan Scheme?
- How can we ensure more people are involved?
11(a) Should planning authorities be required to use methods to support children and young people in planning?
12 Should requirements for pre-application consultation with communities be enhanced? Please explain your answer(s).
12(a) What would be the most effective means of improving this part of the process?
12(b) Are there procedural aspects relating to pre-application consultation (PAC) that should be clarified?
12(c) Are the circumstances in which PAC is required still appropriate?
12(d) Should the period from the serving of the Proposal of Application Notice for PAC to the submission of the application have a maximum time-limit?
- Do you agree that the provision for a second planning application to be made at no cost following a refusal should be removed?
- Should enforcement powers be strengthened by increasing penalties for non-compliance with enforcement action?
- Should current appeal and review arrangements be revised:
15(a) for more decisions to be made by local review bodies?
15(b) to introduce fees for appeals and reviews?
15(c) for training of elected members involved in a planning committee or local review body to be mandatory?
15(d) Do you agree that Ministers, rather than reporters, should make decisions more often?
- What changes to the planning system are required to reflect the particular challenges and opportunities of island communities?
Will these proposals help to deliver more homes and the infrastructure we need? Please explain your answer.
- Do you agree with the proposed improvements to defining how much housing land should be allocated in the development plan?
- Should there be a requirement to provide evidence on the viability of major housing developments as part of information required to validate a planning application?
- Do you agree that planning can help to diversify the ways we deliver homes?
19(a) What practical tools can be used to achieve this?
- What are your views on greater use of zoning to support housing delivery?
20(a) How can the procedures for Simplified Planning Zones be improved to allow for their wider use in Scotland?
20(b) What needs to be done to help resource them?
- Do you agree that rather than introducing a new infrastructure agency, improved national co-ordination of development and infrastructure delivery in the shorter term would be more effective?
- Would the proposed arrangements for regional partnership working support better infrastructure planning and delivery?
22(a) What actions or duties at this scale would help?
- Should the ability to modify or discharge Section 75 planning obligations (Section 75A) be restricted?
- Do you agree that future legislation should include new powers for an infrastructure levy? If so, 24(a) at what scale should it be applied?
24(b) to what type of development should it apply?
24(c) who should be responsible for administering it?
24(d) what type of infrastructure should it be used for? 24(e) If not, please explain why.
- Do you agree that Section 3F of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as introduced by Section 72 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, should be removed?
Do you agree the measures set out here will improve the way that the planning service is resourced? Please explain your answer.
- What measures can we take to improve leadership of the Scottish planning profession?
- What are the priorities for developing skills in the planning profession?
- Are there ways in which we can support stronger multidisciplinary working between built environment professions?
- How can we better support planning authorities to improve their performance as well as the performance of others involved in the process?
- Do you agree that we should focus more on monitoring outcomes from planning (e.g. how places have changed)?
30(a) Do you have any ideas on how this could be achieved?
- Do you have any comments on our early proposals for restructuring of planning fees?
- What types of development would be suitable for extended permitted development rights?
- What targeted improvements should be made to further simplify and clarify development management procedures?
33(a) Should we make provisions on the duration of planning permission in principle more flexible by introducing powers to amend the duration after permission has been granted? How can existing provisions be simplified?
33(b) Currently developers can apply for a new planning permission with different conditions to those attached to an existing permission for the same development. Can these procedures be improved?
33(c) What changes, if any, would you like to see to arrangements for public consultation of applications for approvals of detail required by a condition on a planning permission in principle?
33(d) Do you have any views on the requirements for pre-determination hearings and determination of applications by full council?
- What scope is there for digitally enabling the transformation of the planning service around the user need?
Optional technical questions
- Do you think any of the proposals set out in this consultation will have an impact, positive or negative, on equalities as set out above? If so, what impact do you think that will be?
- What implications (including potential costs) will there be for business and public sector delivery organisations from these proposals?
- Do you think any of these proposals will have an impact, positive or negative, on children’s rights? If so, what impact do you think that will be?
- Do you have any early views on whether these proposals will generate significant environmental effects? Please explain your answer.