Anyone who has submitted a planning application will know that political oversight is needed for schemes that have significant public interest – and determination by planning committee should represent democracy in action.

Even after securing that sought-after officer support and a recommendation for approval – a significant achievement that often deserves ‘high fives all round!’ – applications still frequently head to committee for a final decision.  Clients often remind us that this stage, and indeed the entire planning application process, can demand more input, more cost, and significantly longer processing times than ever expected. 

There is a lack of a standard approach across different councils and variance in how often they meet their methods for considering proposals, and whether they hold hearings for almost every application or rarely at all. Some councils implement a two-tiered process where an area committee reviews proposals initially, followed by a council-wide committee that further ratifies the decision. It is no wonder applicants become frustrated when similar applications just a few miles apart are handled so differently. 

When it comes to the decision-making itself, for those of us who have observed and participated, it genuinely feels like a  rollercoaster ride with hugely elevated heart-rates at the moment of decision. Unpredictable dynamics can unfold too. We  recently encountered a situation where the committee chair was on the fence, more open to persuasion from the questions and debates raised by other members than we anticipated. It felt like a flip of a coin. Although we ultimately achieved a positive outcome, it was a tense moment.  

We all have our own experiences with planning committees and the various scenarios that can unfold. Many of our projects involve multi-million pound developments that create jobs during both the construction and operational phases, as well as generate investment through spending and taxes.

While applicants seek certainty in the decision-making process, achieving this within a democratic framework is inherently challenging. While councillors must diligently avoid conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, some authorities have introduced pre-submission and pre-application hearings and presentations, giving councillors an earlier awareness of proposals. But remember, this is entirely on an authority-by-authority basis and is not part of the statutory process. 

In England, the Government is consulting on simplifying the planning committee process. A national scheme of delegation which would empower Chief Planners to make more decisions at officer level, changing limits to the size of planning committees and mandatory training for all councillors sitting on committee.

Given the inconsistencies in Scotland, should a similar set of parameters and requirements to decision-making apply right across the country?  

While acknowledging the inherent locational differences between rural and urban areas within Scotland, perhaps we could forge a blueprint for the optimum way for determining applications at committee. Planning committees hold a crucial role, whether it’s addressing declared national and local housing emergencies or supporting economic investment. Creating greater consistency in their approach would undoubtedly go a long way to improving and enhancing the overall planning system in Scotland. 

Get in touch with Maura McCormack or Ian Gallacher to join the debate!