« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
RIGHTS OF APPEAL IN PLANNING: ANALYSIS OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
CONCLUSIONS
266. There is widely based agreement among respondents that there are issues around the current level of public confidence in the planning system, although some feel the level of dissatisfaction may be exaggerated by 'activists'. The need for action to improve confidence is recognised by both supporters and opponents of TPRA although there is little common ground as to how best to address this.
267. The majority of the 1620 who took part in the consultation are in support of the introduction of TPRA with over 4 in 5 respondents (86%) in favour. Strong support comes from individuals, environment/heritage groups, Community Councils and the small number of political representatives/parties who responded and many view TPRA as the only acceptable solution. Individuals accounted for over 4 in 5 (86%) of those who support the introduction of TPRA.
268. Around 1 in 8 respondents (13%) oppose the introduction of TPRA. This includes almost all business/developers, most planning authorities and the majority of planning/related professionals and national/regional agencies and interest groups who responded. Those in the business/developers group are 'implacably opposed' to the introduction of TPRA. 30 of Scotland's 32 local authorities responded to the consultation, with 26 opposing TPRA in principle and 6 in support, although in limited circumstances.
269. Supporters argue that TPRA is required to address the inherent lack of equality and fairness in the planning system because applicants have the right to appeal and third parties do not. Its introduction is also regarded as critical to achieve environmental justice and to ensure the safeguarding of the built and natural environment for future generations.
270. There is evidence that support for TPRA is in part born out of frustration with aspects of the existing planning system and indeed many supporters view it as a potential means to address specific failings. The potential of TPRA to be used as leverage to ensure that development plans are kept up to date, that developers enter into pre-application discussions with communities and that the role and views of Community Council views are 'taken seriously' by planning authorities are common themes in the responses of supporters of TPRA. Through such leverage it is anticipated that ultimately better quality applications and developments will result and therefore in the long term there are likely to be less appeals rather than more.
271. Opponents argue that the introduction of TPRA will be another burden on an already slow and unresponsive system that does not meet its own performance targets. Business/developers see it bringing additional risks and delays, threatening investment and national economic growth. Planning authorities and statutory agencies also have concerns about the potentially negative impact on investment in public infrastructure and major public/private partnership projects including regeneration initiatives, as well as major concerns about how TPRA could be resourced.
272. Those opposed to TPRA do not regard it as an appropriate response to address current public concerns and see it not only as a threat to local democracy but also not in the (silent) wider public interest. Indeed they anticipate that if TPRA is to be introduced its use will be dominated by those acting out of a narrow self interest or those with specific 'agendas' who will have raised expectations of their views influencing the outcome of appeals decisions. If the majority of appeals continue to be granted in favour of applicants, which it is suggested seems likely, they think this will only lead to frustration and further undermining of public confidence - the opposite of what is intended.
273. Supporters want to see TPRA as an integral part of the current ongoing reform of the existing planning system, not something to be considered separately. Opponents feel that it is inappropriate to consider the introduction of TPRA into a system that is already under resourced and currently going through a process of change and that efforts to improve third party involvement in planning decisions should focus on the development plan formulation and development pre-application stages. Current planned improvements to the system should be given the opportunity to 'bed down' and prove themselves before considering the introduction of such a radical change to the planning system.
274. If TPRA was to be introduced the majority of respondents would support its application to be restricted to the 4 Partnership Agreement categories of where the local authority has an interest, where the application is contrary to the local plan, when planning officers have recommended rejection and where an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required. However the majority of planning authorities would only support its introduction in the case where there is 'significant departure from the development plan' and the majority of business/developers would not support its introduction in any of the categories. The categories of 'where planning officers have recommended rejection' and 'where an EIA is required' were the most controversial as proposed categories where TPRA could apply. Moreover the primary interest among supporters is for TPRA to apply to decisions on 'developer scale' rather than 'householder scale' applications, irrespective of their technical planning status.
275. Of the Models presented in the consultation paper support is strongest for Model 1 (based on a new third party appeals system) and Model 2 (based on the continued modernisation of the existing planning system) - the former by supporters of TPRA, the latter by opponents.
276. When asked to identify alternative changes that could bring about a fair and effective planning system many respondents suggested quite modest measures some of which are already being addressed by current modernisation proposals, some which are not.
277. Among some opponents of TPRA, and in particular planning authorities, there is a degree of acceptance that the increased use of hearings and Ministerial notification and call-in procedures may have a part to play in increasing public confidence in the planning system. The case for published criteria, guidance and more consistency governing the circumstances in which they should be used would be welcomed by some and would be preferable to the introduction of TPRA.
278. To conclude, notwithstanding the majority support for the introduction of TPRA, the views of key stakeholder groups are highly polarised and split between those who are strongly in favour and those who are strongly opposed with little common ground.
« Previous | Contents | Next »