DPEA workload up 600% as Scottish appeals face delays

The DPEA workload is putting Scotland’s planning appeal system under growing pressure, with newly published Scottish Government minutes revealing that some cases are being left unallocated because there are not enough reporters available.

The Planning and Environmental Appeals Stakeholder Forum minutes, published on 8th October 2026, record a reported 600% increase in workload at the Scottish Government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division. Managers warned that extra staffing was not keeping pace with complex energy and compulsory purchase casework.

These are minutes of a meeting held on 3rd June 2026, not fresh October performance figures or an announcement of new legislation. Their significance is the detailed account of how appeals, local development plan gatechecks and electricity infrastructure cases are being prioritised, together with the Division’s approach to a major court ruling on environmental assessment.

DPEA workload: why cases are being stacked

DPEA handles planning and environmental appeals in Scotland, as well as other referrals to Scottish Ministers. The minutes state that it was currently experiencing a 600% increase in workload. The account attributes much of the pressure to Accelerated Strategic Transmission Investment (ASTI) electricity lines, section 36 and section 37 Electricity Act cases, compulsory purchase orders and gatechecks for the next generation of local development plans.

That 600% figure is the Division’s description of workload pressure, not a claim that the number of ordinary planning appeals rose 600% during the last financial year. The minutes give a separate, smaller figure for growth in the number of cases received. The distinction is essential because complex electricity cases can absorb considerably more reporter time than straightforward written appeals.

The minutes describe a new allocation practice known as stacking. Where a case is ready but no reporter is free, it is held until the next allocation meeting, generally two weeks later. DPEA said that short-term let appeals had, in some instances, been allocated a month late, with potential consequences for the usual 12-week determination target.

The indicative priority order recorded at the meeting was ASTI cases first, followed by housing appeals and local plan gatechecks, renewables, general appeals and short-term let appeals. This does not mean that every case in a lower category will necessarily be delayed. It explains where pressure may be concentrated when several competing cases need the same finite reporter resource.

Annual case receipts rose 77%, with electricity work dominating

The meeting reviewed figures for the financial year from 1st April 2025 to 31st March 2026. DPEA received 1,795 cases, a rise of 781, or 77%, on the previous year. Of these, 719 were delegated cases. It had 979 cases in hand at the end of March.

Officials reported that wayleave cases had increased from just 10 in 2024/25 to 963 in 2025/26. In response to a question at the forum, Joint Chief Reporter Trudi Craggs indicated that approximately 95% of the wayleave cases were associated with ASTI. These cases should not be confused with ordinary development-management appeals.

The Division had recruited nine new reporters, comprising four new posts and five backfills, together with two additional consultant reporters. Nevertheless, the minutes record an expectation that extraordinary demand would extend into the following year. The Energy Consents Unit had also warned that further cases in its pipeline were likely to come to DPEA in higher numbers than originally expected.

Despite the pressure, most written appeals were then still meeting published targets. DPEA reported that 87.25% of written-submission cases met the 12-week target, taking 10.5 weeks on average. For further written submissions, 85.71% met the 20-week target; for hearings, 57.14% met the 40-week target, with an average duration of 41.5 weeks.

These historic figures should not be read as a present-day guarantee of an appeal decision date. Where reporting capacity and the timing of case allocation matter commercially, applicants and advisers should make conservative programme assumptions and check the current case timetable.

Local development plan gatechecks may also slip

Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4 operates alongside a new generation of local development plans, with evidence reports subject to a gatecheck before authorities proceed to the next stage. DPEA is responsible for assessing whether those evidence reports are sufficient.

At the June meeting, officials said that 12 planning authorities had obtained a sufficient evidence-report determination. Nine had passed at the first attempt, while three passed following resubmission. Seven reports had been returned and were awaiting resubmission, and four cases were in hand.

The target is for Scotland’s 34 planning authorities to have new-style local development plans by May 2028. Homes for Scotland told the meeting that it estimated only 10 authorities would meet that date. DPEA acknowledged the risk of slippage, while pointing to training, improved guidance and efforts to reduce delays. That industry estimate is not an official forecast that 24 councils will fail.

For developers, landowners and communities, delays at the evidence-report stage could ripple into the timing of proposed-plan consultations and examinations. Planning Geek has already covered Edinburgh City Plan 2040 clearing its gatecheck, illustrating why the gateway matters before site allocations are finalised.

Wull Muir ruling changes the questions reporters must ask

The minutes also contain a significant practice update on electricity casework following the Court of Session’s decision in Raeshaw Farms Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2026] CSIH 10, concerning Wull Muir Wind Farm. The judgment was issued on 17th February 2026, months before these minutes were published.

The court quashed the reporter’s earlier approval because the reporter had not carried out a sufficiently specific evaluation of whether the proposed wind farm and the grid connection necessary to operate it together amounted to one project for environmental impact assessment purposes. It was not enough simply to say that the connection could be assessed separately later.

At the forum, Assistant Chief Reporter Robert Seaton explained that reporters must make a fact-specific judgment about whether a grid connection forms part of the project. If it does, its potentially significant environmental effects must be assessed as part of the relevant environmental assessment. DPEA indicated that a high-level assessment might sometimes be needed while precise connection details remained unresolved.

Officials also discussed the possible use of multistage conditions where details cannot yet be fully assessed. Such a condition may need to prevent implementation until the connection arrangements have been approved. That is a case-specific mechanism, not an automatic cure for insufficient EIA, nor does it remove the need for separate statutory consent to install grid infrastructure.

For applicants, the immediate lesson is to investigate grid-connection options early, document the functional relationship between generating infrastructure and connection works, and avoid relying on later consent procedures as a substitute for the legally required assessment. For objectors, the court’s reasoning reinforces the importance of evidence on environmental effects rather than merely alleging deliberate project splitting.

What applicants, councils and objectors should do now

Parties with an active Scottish appeal should check whether the appointed reporter and published procedure leave adequate time for evidence and responses. Where a case is still awaiting allocation, DPEA’s explanation of stacking shows why a period without visible movement need not indicate that the case has been abandoned.

Renewable-energy developers should pay particular attention to environmental documents covering the generating station, connection corridor, related infrastructure and cumulative effects. Scotland is separately considering changes to who decides large schemes, but its electricity-consenting threshold remains unchanged while that consultation is considered.

It is also worth distinguishing DPEA’s reporter capacity from the Energy Consents Unit’s own determination performance. Planning Geek’s report on the Scottish wind consent target examines the central consenting pipeline. The minutes describe a related pressure point when cases need reporter attention, rather than proving that one body alone causes delay.

Prospective local plan promoters should monitor evidence-report gatechecks and the preparation timetables of individual authorities. The best time to correct an evidence gap or improve the case for a site is often before a proposed plan enters formal examination.

For now there is no new statutory appeal deadline, changed section 36 threshold or revised EIA regulation arising from these minutes. The publication provides unusually candid operational evidence about how the existing system is coping, and useful insight into how reporters are applying an already decided court case. The next decisive developments will be updated casework figures, completion of delayed gatechecks, and any final code of practice or consenting reform that the Scottish Government subsequently publishes.