Counting the changes

Is this another set of unlucky numbers for Friday the 13th? The planning statistics for 2009-2010 are out (hard on the heals of the stats for the previous year which appeared in March this year). Recession is written all over the figures. Perhaps the gloomiest stat of all is that between 2008/09 and 2009/10, the number of major applications in Scotland fell from 1,778 to 959, i.e. a year-on-year fall of 46%.

Looking back to 2006/07, there were 54,597 planning applications in Scotland with only a small fall in 2007/08. In 2009/10 there were 40,368, a fall of 26% from the 2006/07 peak. Even the North East, which looked from last year’s stats like it was escaping the recession, saw a sudden dip in 2009/10. North Lanarkshire has some of the grimmest figures again: from 2006/07 to 2009/10 applications fell by 40%. Over the same period, of the cities, Dundee did worst (a fall of 34%) and Glasgow did best (a fall of 25%). Rural areas tended to do better. The only positive thing to say about the market in 2009/10 is that the year is now over, and generally things feel healthier out there.

So, as planning offices have emptied of work, have processing times improved? In actual fact, there was a small improvement for processing of minor applications – 63.4% were decided within two months, up from 62.2% the previous year. However, the number of major applications determined within the new time limit of four months has actually fallen. If you drill further into the figures, you find that for the first four months of 2009/10 (i.e. before the new system came into effect) 520 major applications were made, and 45% of them were determined within four months. In the last eight months of the year, 439 major applications were made and 27% of them were determined within four months.

It would be unfair to condemn the new planning procedures merely on the basis of eight months’ figures at the start of its operation: inevitably time must be allowed for people to get used to operating a new system (though this is often an impact of reform reformers ignore) and there is probably also there is an impact from planning departments either shedding staff or not filling posts. However, it hardly inspires confidence that at a time when there were far fewer applications to deal with, our new stratified system has operated far slower than apparently the system did previously. The 12-week pre-application consultation no doubt depressed the number of applications that could be made in the latter two thirds of the year, but it also seems that developers either sought to apply before the new system came into effect or have held back from applying.

There are initial figures on the first eight months of operation of Local Review Bodies. The figures are incomplete, with none available from Glasgow, North Lanarkshire or Stirling. However, those who thought that the LRB would simply be a creature of the planners can take heart: of the 101 cases counted, the LRB overturned the appointed officer’s decision 27 times – almost the rate at which reporters overturn Council decisions. There is a real variation between authorities though: Of Edinburgh’s 20 cases, the LRB only overturned the officer’s decision three times. Compare that with Inverclyde where all four LRB cases resulted in the officer’s decision being overturned. Although no figures are provided for Glasgow, anecdotally their LRB overturns half of the officer’s decisions. Can anything be drawn from this? Reporters have historically overturned decisions of some planning authorities more often than others.

Are LRB decisions any faster than an appeal to a reporter? It seems likely: 45% of decisions are made within 2 months and almost 80% within three. The average time for an appeal decision fell to 11 weeks in November 2009 (though the fall in appeal times was assisted by business passing to LRBs).

Quick LRB decisions may be a result of truncated procedure – 55 out of 101 LRB cases were decided without any further procedure – even a site visit. 6 went to a hearing though, which is actually a higher rate than reporters decided were necessary.

13 out of 34 planning authorities didn’t report any meetings of their LRB at all (though again this includes Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and Stirling). This seems to show a level of suspicion of LRBs that is surprising given the advantages for appellants: an opportunity to address a new audience whose concerns will not be exactly those of the professional planners, and no risk of expenses if the review fails. No doubt we’ll see the work of LRBs pick up as people become more familiar with the system.

Next year’s figures will give us a clearer idea of how the reforms have worked. And hopefully show a picture of an economy that’s picking up.