The number of retrospective planning applications in West Lothian has fallen over the last two years, councillors heard this week.
But a report made clear that legal enforcement of planning remains a complicated and expensive process for the council if it is faced with deliberate and determined planning breaches.
Jim McGinlay, Building Standards Manager, said it was primarily a legal problem, adding that: “there is very little we can do if people ignore the legislation.”
He added that there had been suggestions in the past that lending institutions to demand evidence of planning permission before funding developments, but this had been problematic to introduce.
Council officers compiled a report after an SNP call two months ago responding to fears that a “culture of non-compliance with planning regulations” was developing.
A meeting of the Economy, Community Empowerment and Wealth Building PDSP also heard that a new flat fee of £143 is to be introduced by the Scottish government for anyone who wants to appeal a refusal of planning permission determined by the Local Review Body.
The SNP call from depute group leader Pauline Stafford came in April after the Council Executive was told that there had been 800 enquiries from the public about retrospective planning applications in the last two years.
Claire Johnston, a planning officer, told this week’s meeting of the Economy PDSP that retrospective applications are submitted for a number of reasons, not only as a result of enforcement enquiries.
Last year the number of retrospective applications validated, that means accepted and considered by the council, fell slightly, to 79 from 87 in 2023/24.
In both 23/24 and 24/25 a total of 57 applications came as the result of enforcement enquiries by planning officers. In percentage terms planning enforcement generated 72% of last year’s retrospective applications against 66% of those in 2023/24.
A report to the PDSP explained: “The requirement to submit a retrospective planning application is the main course of enforcement action utilised by the service.
“Officers pursue the owners to apply for the necessary permissions in order to allow the development to be fully considered in line with planning policy, and to allow the opportunity for the public to submit comments on the development.”
It added: “Applying for retrospective planning permission carries a level of risk, as these applications are assessed in the same manner as proposed development, and there is no guarantee that they will be supported.
“Where retrospective applications and any subsequent appeals are refused, officers re-commence enforcement action and if necessary, proceed to serving enforcement notices to have the breach resolved.
“The 25% surcharge on fees for retrospective applications was introduced by the Scottish Government, with the intention to primarily provide a means of recovering the costs of undertaking enforcement investigations, rather than to be seen as a punishment for breaching planning control.”
Planning fees vary on the size and type of development but can run into tens of thousands of pounds for large housing developments. Generally, for individual plans they can amount to anything from a few hundred pounds to around the £1,000 mark.
The council has a Development Management team of nine planning officers and three planning assistants. All Development Management officers carry out some level of enforcement- case officers will often visit development sites and check for compliance with relevant conditions and approved plans.
There are two planning officers and one assistant who work primarily on enforcement cases.
The cost of enforcement falls under the budget of the Development Management service. There is only a modest budget to support legal action.
There would be an additional cost to the service if the option of taking direct action, as a result of non-compliance with enforcement notices, were to be instructed. There is currently no budget for taking Direct Action to resolve breaches of planning control.
The SNP group said in April: “A proactive approach to compliance and adequate resourcing are essential for a successful service.”
Labour’s Tom Conn suggested publication of applications under enforcement through regular DMC meetings that would reassure the public that enforcement was ongoing and “there was progress”.
Ms Johnston told the meeting: “There is actually an enforcement register on the council’s website. We recently added a column to add compliance date so that it’s available to all members of the public.”
Donald Stavert from the Joint forum of Community Councils said: “My question is about getting to the people who start building extensions without getting planning permission. Is there a need for a general education programme for the public? Is it a question of ignorance?
Ms Johnston said there is generally a lack of knowledge, but the Scottish Government does provide a lot of information on enforcement and does suggest to look at guidance documents. She added that beyond stressing on the council website what you can and cannot do without permission, it was difficult to know what to do.”
Chairing the Meeting councillor Susan Manion said: “It’s certainly a tricky issue.”
By Stuart Sommerville, Local Democracy Reporter
