Planning Performance and Fees

FC feel the vision statement should:

o Be more inclusive to address the needs of sectors of the population who either can’t or choose not to participate in the planning process
o Highlight the role of planning in contributing to long term health and wellbeing of communities and address shared challenges such as climate change

FC generally agree with the content but suggest that consideration be given to:
o expanding the Resources section to include how they have supported staff development
o including details of how the authority has worked to develop a positive organisational culture
o including details of how the organisation has approached the wider promotion of planning and the planning profession
o careful consideration needs to be given to “the authorities approach to local place plans” given these are proposed to be led by community groups and that funding, to date, has not been provided for Local Authorities to assist.

• FC are encouraged that the co-ordinator role will extend across the whole of the planning system. Whilst the role should be funded by Scottish Government, it will be important for the co-ordinator to be sufficiently independent to ensure scrutiny of PAD and DPEA can be seen to be effective.
• It will also be important for the coordinator to develop relationships with key stakeholders including the development industry and community representatives and consideration of the potential of digital tools will be key to maintaining connections to these groups.
• It is considered that the role should not include considering and responding to complaints. Fife Council, as other Councils, have corporate complaint processes which allows for complainants if they remain dissatisfied to take their concern further to SPSO. In addition, RTPI consider and respond to complaints relating to professional conduct.

• The increase in per unit fees for up to 49 units is welcomed.
• The work involved in processing applications for 50 or more units is not reflected in the drop in unit costs to £250. These Major applications routinely involve, more specialist report submissions, more consultation, more representations and more complex impacts on infrastructure. They are also routinely processed by more senior / experienced staff.
• At Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) stage the proposed fee does not reflect the work involved on larger sites (for 50 units or more) where complex issues are routinely involved. These larger applications can be complex to assess and determine in a manner which ensures that the resultant development is delivered cohesively over periods of up to 20 years. In these cases, the maximum fee should also be much higher.

• Whilst FC appreciate the new lower level fee for minor householder applications (replacement windows and curtilage development) is appropriate in terms of reflecting the cost to the householder of the actual development, the new fee would not cover the cost of processing the application, particularly in urban areas. Consideration should be given to removing the requirement for neighbour notification for this type of householder development. Where proposals of this type comply with guidance and technical requirements, they very rarely lead to material planning concerns being raised by third parties.

• FC welcome the recognition that retail and leisure development can have significant impacts and that these proposals will therefore often require consideration of traffic and retail impact assessments. The principle of a significant increase in the fee is therefore welcomed.
• However, we consider that the proposed 50m floorspace threshold is set too low. Our assessment of previous applications shows that this would unduly penalise proposals for relatively straight forward minor extensions and additions to existing leisure and retail facilities such as golf clubs and farm shops, potentially leading to a detrimental impact on the tourism and leisure industry which is important to the local economy.

• FC welcome the proposal as the increased fees are focused on proposals for developments where floorspace exceeds 10,000 m2. and will the reduction in fees for smaller buildings could help to support the development of new / small businesses.

• A separate category is not required for glasshouses on land that is not agricultural land. The fee should be the same regardless of whether the glasshouse is on agricultural land or not. Whilst the determining issues will be different depending on the location, an application for a glasshouse which is not on agricultural land is not necessarily more complex or more costly to process. Recognition of this in the fee structure would support the development of new technology based and efficient forms of food production.

• A separate category is not required for polytunnels on land that is not agricultural land. The fee should be the same regardless of whether the polytunnel is on agricultural land or not. Whilst the determining issues will be different depending on the location, an application for a polytunnel which is not on agricultural land is not necessarily more complex or more costly to process. Recognition of this in the fee structure would support the development of new technology-based / efficient forms of food production.

• For windfarms, the fee should not be based on the site area as this can lead to important elements of the development being omitted from the site boundary, particularly where a lengthy means of access to a public road is needed. Alternative options would be to continue to charge on a per turbine basis, or to charge fees according to the design output of the proposed windfarm.

• FC welcome the recognition that the number and height of turbines proposed impacts significantly on the work required to process the application.
• The proposed fees provide for developments of one or two turbines to be calculated per turbine and for developments of 4 or more turbines to be calculated on the basis of the site area. The means of calculating the fee for developments of 3 turbines is not addressed and FC consider 3 turbines should be included within the windfarm definition.
.

• At PPP stage, it will be difficult to base the fee on the floorspace of the development as this is unlikely to be known until later in the process when decisions on the specific technology to be utilised are finalised. (Even full applications tend to be subject to design changes after the decision to grant planning permission has been made.

• A separate category is needed for Solar farms as the proposed fee structure would result in application fees being excessive in relation to the complexity of the assessment required. The range of potential impacts of solar farm developments are less complex to assess than is the case with wind energy developments.

• A separate category is needed for energy storage developments, as they raise concerns for local communities. WeI would suggest the fee could be based on either the design storage capacity or the size of the site.

• Whilst the proposed increase in the level of fees is welcome, the maximum fee is far too low, given the complexity of the applications (particularly for larger sites) and the volume of representations which they generate. The length of life of the permissions and the long-term consequences of not ensuring there are adequate controls in place if permission is granted mean that these applications are allocated to more senior / experienced staff, which also increases the cost of processing.

• As there is little practical difference in the level of assessment needed for peat extraction when compared with other minerals, fees should be charged on the same basis as other Mineral extraction proposals.

• FC welcomes the recognition of the complexity of applications for a change of use of land and the consequent introduction of a scale of fees relating to the size of the site. However, the proposed fee scale takes no account of the other key component in terms of the work required to process the application which depends largely on the nature of the proposed use.
• Our assessment of previous applications shows that this proposal would unduly penalise proposals for relatively straight forward changes of use of land, particularly where the change comprises the expansion of an existing use into a new area of adjoining land.
• Perhaps fees for changes of use could simply be aligned with the standard fee for the actual use, as is already proposed for the creation of dwellings

• FC is very disappointed that the 150% cap on PPP and AMSC fees is to remain. This creates significant issues for strategic level developments which often include retail, education facilities and infrastructure works along with housing development. In these cases AMSC applications can be submitted for periods of 20 years and involve numerous developers and substitute AMSC proposals for some parcels of land. Even where a masterplan for the PPP site in place there is no way for the planning authority to calculate an AMSC fee based on the number of AMSC applications which will be submitted. This is further complicated by the submission of some AMSC applications which provide details of specific elements of the site such as structural landscaping or SuDS infrastructure, rather than a detailed design and layout solution for a phase of development or specific parcel of land within the PPP site.
• Section 42 applications and the ability to seek full planning permission for development at variance with the approved PPP for parts of the site introduce further complexities in these situations.
• The 150% cap on PPP/AMSC fees combined with the nominal fee for an application under S42 effectively means that the work being undertaken over the life of a large PPP site is heavily under-funded.
• We urge Scottish Government to consider AMSC fees in more detail and to fully understand the impact changes would have, particularly on those Planning Authorities who have large scale mixed use development/growth areas.

In practice the number of developers / apportionment of the site will not be known at the start of a development whihc could be built out over 20 years.

• Whilst FC appreciates that restrictions on PD place an additional burden on businesses and householders within a Conservation Area, these property owners will also benefit from their location within a Conservation Area.

• FC consider it appropriate to introduce a fee to contribute to the cost of processing applications for LBC, provided that exemptions are applied for works to restore or re-instate Listed Buildings. Otherwise fees should generally be low as neighbour notification is not required and representations are low in number (perhaps the £150 rate used for minor householder works) other than for proposals which involve demolition or significant extensions.

• In order to gauge the effect of the proposed fee changes on the Planning Services budget, FC has examined the applications which were submitted to Fife in 2019 and compared the actual fees charged for this group of applications with the fees which would apply under the proposed main charging scheme for the various categories of fees. Our assessment shows that this might result in an overall increase of circa 19%, assuming a similar application caseload was submitted in future. This falls short of the level needed to achieve full cost recovery. Fife Council consider that this re-structuring of planning fees should achieve full cost recovery to the Planning Service. This fee re-structure is long overdue and is required within Fife Planning Authority to assist in addressing significant budget pressures.

• It is noted that the proposed increase in fees is not to fund the 49 new and unfunded duties (set out in RTPI research) introduced through the new Planning Act.

• The fee for S42 applications bears no relationship to the work involved in processing the application, particularly where Major developments, PPP and AMSC applications are involved or where the application relates to a development which has already commenced or has been completed. Whilst the proposed flat rate fee could be appropriate for single units and small Local developments, the work involved in dealing with more complex developments can include the need to consider and consult on updated technical reports and merits a substantial fee, which would perhaps be best expressed a percentage of the original application fee.
• Again, we urge Scottish Government to consider S42 fees in more detail and to fully understand the impact changes would have.

• Each planning authority should be in a position to respond to the demands for service present within their own area and then to offer the level of service which they can resource.
• It is important that a national structure is not directed on Planning Authorities, rather that the new fees encourage discretionary fees where Planning Authorities can provide services to customers.

• This should be left to individual planning authorities to determine. As can be seen from the examples given, the nature / level of the Pre-App Service offered by individual authorities will vary significantly. Fife Council has offered discretionary services to customers at a fee for a number of years now, which is tailored to the service that we can provide.
• Learning from English Planning Authorities, a range of discretionary fees are used. Directed fixed fees is neither considered appropriate nor necessary in Scotland.

• The fee is for a different service to the customer which requires additional resourcing. The fee is designed to cover the cost associated with providing advice to enable the prospective applicant to make an informed decision on whether to proceed with an application / how to develop the application to improve the prospect of a successful outcome. Given that the proposed fee structure would not result in full cost recovery to the Planning Authority, reducing any pre-application fee would impact on the resourcing of Planning and thereby the level of service that can be provided to customers.
• Whilst the pre-app process could also be helpful to the planning authority in terms of processing the subsequent application, evidence suggests that this is not necessarily the case

• Planning authorities should be able to determine the fee on the basis of the cost for them in terms of resources.
• FC experience is that processing agreements are much more problematic where an applicant has not been involved in the pre-app process. If a set fee is decided on then it is important to reflect this by providing for a higher fee to be charged where the applicant has not sought pre-app advice.

• Authorities should have flexibility to set the fee
• Most non-material variations are relatively straight-forward to process, but where a number of adjustments are being made to Major development, they can be more time consuming.

• FC routinely negotiates the appointment of independent compliance assessors for monitoring of extractive industry sites. The applicant pays the actual cost of the monitoring regime agreed under S75. The appointment of independent compliance officers is particularly helpful in this area where effective monitoring would be difficult to resource in terms of expertise available within authorities.
• A monitoring fee should also be introduced It would be useful to provide for monitoring of Major Developments during the construction phase.

• FC appreciates that providing full details of a development can be both difficult and expensive for an applicant at the time an application is submitted. However, the absence of information increases the work involved in the assessment of the application whilst addressing sometimes significant information about a development at a later stage in the process excludes local people from that part of the decision making. Often the information will necessitate further consultation and this introduces inefficiencies in the planning process. It is important to encourage as much of the detail as possible to be included in the initial submission. The introduction of a fee per condition would encourage this.

• Planning and legal costs can be significant, particularly for complex developments and sites in multiple ownerships.

• It should be for planning authorities to determine the fee based on the average cost incurred in that authority.

• FC considers that Masterplan Consent Areas provide a valuable tool to promote development and economic growth in targeted areas where development might not otherwise happen.

• The existing provisions are sufficient where an applicant engages in the pre-application service. Fees should only be payable where this is not the case and should be based on a percentage of the application fee.
• Such a fee should be discretionary for each Council to consider whether they could resource this.

• FC consider this should ideally be a Scotland wide digital register with a nominal fee (£25) on an annual subscription basis. This would prevent duplication where individuals might have interests across authority areas with the fee designed to prevent casual registration and provide funding for maintaining the digital platform.

• No. It is important that all types of development are seen to be treated equally

• All cases.

Refunds would set the appeal process on a completely different footing from the application process and could lead to an expectation that if planning permission is refused the application fee would be refunded.

All

• FC consider that there should be no distinction between fees for Local review and fees for Appeals

• FC consider it important to ensure any use of this power involves a transparent and equitable process, perhaps with external controls in place.
• FC consider it vital that this power is only used proactively to prioritise / encourage developments which support key Council priorities in specific geographical areas, rather than as a reaction to specific proposals or as a benefit for a specific applicant group. This might include stimulating employment opportunities in areas of high unemployment or developments which specifically address climate change. Each Council would have to carefully consider this.

• This reflects the additional work involved in processing these applications

• FC does not welcome the need for the use of discretion as it would be extremely difficult to define the circumstances in which that discretion would be applied without leaving the planning authority in a position where who the applicant is or what the applicant’s intents was affects the level of surcharge. It would be better to reduce the level of surcharge to 50%

• Some planning authorities, including FC, already charge an administration fee on the basis that the cost of the additional work involved in processing a paper application should not be borne by the public purse.

• FC would be interested in exploring how incentives could be used to stimulate the submission of fully complete applications, particularly for Major applications and for some of the larger Local proposals. There is the potential to reduce the time and resource needed to process these applications if all the information needed is submitted, rather than the minimum needed for validation. Where this is the case a 10% fee rebate could be appropriate, and agents involved in this area would potentially be able to use past performance to generate interest from new clients. However, it is considered that such a change would be premature until validation is fundamentally reviewed.

• Applications should no longer be advertised in the local press and Regulations should be revised to address this. Our customer feedback confirms that very few (if any) citizens now use the local newspaper as a source of information about planning applications. The information readily available on Tellme Scotland and planning portals provides better accessibility and the need for press adverts is archaic in a digital planning system. The move to digital advertising is essential.

• An application assessment which includes consideration of an ES requires to be undertaken by more experienced planning officers involves a significant amount of resource in terms of the assessment, writing the Report of Handling and drafting Conditions. In addition the level of resource required in terms of checking for validation, and loading and storing on systems is also significant, as is the resources involved in dealing with representations

£600

In reality most PPP applications are now 'hybrid applications' given the need to address key determining issues, even at PPP stage. The traditional 'red line around a site with an access shown' only now occurs for small scale proposals such as single houses.

There should be a single fee for PPP, but it should be more than 50% of the full application fee.