The Planning Committee meets on 12 November. Here is the link to the papers.

Planning Committee 12 Nov 2025 (See Item 7.7, Page 321)

** With regard to the content below, on 11 Nov, I was advised of Elected Member Group opposition to the proposals, with Amendments tabled from three of the groups for the 12 November meeting. A final agreed Amendment (passed 8 votes to 2) held that the trigger would remain in place for now, but would hinge on the representations being tabled as 'material planning considerations'. Community councils should keep sharpen their focus on what is 'material'. (KR)

1 The City Council is reviewing the ‘Scheme of Delegation to Officers’ – a statutory document spanning a wide range of Council undertakings. This was last done in May 2023.  Agenda Item 7.7 in the Planning Committee papers addresses the ‘Scheme of Delegation – Chief Planning Officer’

2 Changes to the Chief Planning Officer’s (CPO) authorities are proposed at the 12 November meeting in respect of the process for dealing with planning applications. If approved, these changes will be referred to the Full Council for approval. (The proposed revisions across all delegated authorities are set out in Appendix 7 of the main Scheme of Delegation to Officers.)

3 The objective of the proposed changes to CPO authorities is to ‘enhance the effectiveness and efficiency in decision-making by delegating decisions that do not raise significant planning issues to the Chief Planning Officer, freeing up Committee time to focus on the most complex or controversial applications’.

4 There is an important proposed change relating to the number of representations received, including petitions, before a planning application will be referred to the Development Management Sub Committee (DMSC).  Since 2023, that threshold has been ‘more than 20 representations’ for all applications. The Council now proposes to remove these numerical triggers. This widens the delegated authority of the CPO.

5 In such circumstances, if an application is not required to go before the DMSC because of any other restriction set out in the Scheme, then it would be at the discretion of the CPO to refer the application to the DMSC, irrespective of the number of representations lodged. That said, this new framework would not apply where there are unresolved objections from Statutory Consultees and the application is recommended for approval. That situation would include community councils where they have requested to be a Statutory Consultee. This puts a new onus on community councils, perhaps, not to rely on representations from elsewhere to act as a DMSC reference ‘brake’, but to take Statutory Consultee status themselves.

6 The proposed changes are cast in the context of Planning Office work volumes, productivity and efficiency. Illustrative figures are offered in the Planning Committee papers. By way of example, between May 2023 and June 2025, the Planning Office determined 12,568 applications. 96% were determined by the Chief Planning Officer (CPO) under delegated authority.  During that period, the DMSC held 42 meetings and 480 applications were considered.  In 22 cases, the CPO recommendation was overturned.

7 As part of the review, a comparative exercise was carried out across other local planning authorities (LPA).  The Report states - “York was the only LPA that did not have a trigger relating to representations. Fife and Glasgow have a trigger relating to representations both in objection and support. The rest had a trigger of six representations in objection where it is recommended the application be granted. None had a specific trigger relating to petitions.”

8 This note only deals with issues regarding representation lodged in relation to planning applications. For the full context to the Scheme of Delegation – Chief Planning Officer, please consult, in detail, Agenda Item 7.

Colin Anderson, Fairmilehead Community Council