IT is quicker and easier to get planning permission for major property developments in Glasgow, rather than Edinburgh, according to a new study, though both lag the rest of the UK, writes Bob Serafini.

Research by specialist property firm G L Hearn, supported by industry body The Scottish Property Federation (SPF), shows major applications take an average of 47 weeks in Edinburgh and 39 weeks in Glasgow – more than twice the national target of four months.

Eight out of ten who applied are dissatisfied with the length of time it takes to get a decision, exacerbated in the capital by a success rate of only 72 per cent for its 18 large scale projects determined in the last financial year.

Glasgow, which has a reputation for pragmatism and working with developers from a very early stage, approved all the 31 large applications in this UK-wide study, extended north of the border for the first time.

The sample was limited, and the councils’ own figures are slightly different, but developers attending the publication of the results wasted no time in highlighting how important the smooth operation of the planning system can be for our economy.

Chris Stewart, chair of the SPF and CEO of the successful Chris Stewart Group, said: "I nearly fell off my chair when I found that Northumberland processed more major applications than Edinburgh and Glasgow combined. That was quite a shock."

Stewart, who has plans for a £70m regeneration scheme cornering George Square, was part of a Glasgow delegation at 10 Downing Street last month, presenting to more than 100 international investors, and emphasised high level commitment to speed of planning was vital in attracting this source of financial capital.

"One good thing about this report is understanding our performance against the rest of the UK," he said.

"It is critical because we are all competing for the same investment and all get benchmarked against cities elsewhere in Europe."

He said that it wasn’t just the application itself but everything that goes along with it – dealing with building control, roads, legal agreements, pre-application community engagement and Section 75 planning gain – and it could be two to three years before a complex planning application was determined.

"Inability to get on site and get started can have a hugely detrimental effect on our success, particularly trying to capture funding and put it into a project within a market cycle.

"There is a disconnect between how the planning system operates and how the markets constantly change, whether it be funding or political change or the economy."

Stewart said it was important not to criticise hard working councils: "Lately the market has been needing the planning system to respond more quickly, to encourage capital to invest, but this is at a time when the local authorities are getting stripped of their budgets.

"Our engagement with them is always hugely positive. They want things to happen but just don’t have the capacity."

He said that the difference in fees paid in Scotland and England (£25,000 compared to £250,000) was startling and developers had a responsibility to pay more to fund the industry. But he warned this should be ringfenced for the purpose intended and not sucked into wider public spending.

"The link between planning and investment was highlighted by the investors at Downing Street, who see this as a bellwether of a city. They want to see energetic, high performing cities who encourage them to invest. If they have a bad experience, external investors thinking about Scotland may think again."

The Scottish Government established an independent review of the planning system last year which reported six months ago, identifying six key themes now being examined by working parties.