« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5.1.2: National Developments
Local Authorities
Aberdeen City Council: The National Developments category relates to a relatively few applications but in order to ensure that greater democracy and transparency be given to these it is essential that the next National Planning Framework is subject to greater local authority and community consultation. Given the difficulties of effectively engaging communities in strategic planning, M embers may wish to request further information on how the Executive aims to achieve this. This will be particularly important if, as proposed, planning authorities are required to reflect the vision and strategy of the National Planning Framework in their Development Plans.
Aberdeenshire Council: The Scottish Executive should conform, in its operations, in the National Planning Framework, to the same standards of openness and accountability as local authorities. There is also concern regarding the overt potential drivers of the revised structure, questioning the inclusion of the objectives of the government of the day in such strategic policy, as a planning system should be able to serve any political authority.
Argyll & Bute Council: There is a need for "National developments" to be clearly defined, with particular regard to wind farms as there is a clear possibility that wind farms would be the subject of greater use of the Electricity consents than at present. It is considered that this would reduce local democracy, particularly when there is a lack of clear guidance over where the Scottish Executive targets for renewable energy are expected to be met.
East Lothian Council: The Scottish Executive alone should deal with proposals identified as National Developments, the proposed involvement of local planning authorities, whether at the development plan or application stage, will at best confuse matters and at worst could raise public expectations that matters that have been decided remain open for debate. Individual council will not determine the need for, form or location of National Developments so there is no point in "local engagement"; engagement must take place before the decision has been made by the Executive. Moreover treating National Developments as proposals in the development plan raises significant issues regarding treatment of objections to those plans. The arrangements proposed for dealing with applications are cumbersome and complicated, and leave the major burden of administering applications and dealing with any public controversy with councils.
Glasgow City Council: This proposal could help facilitate the delivery of the major development proposals in Glasgow which are included in the NPF by prioritising them at a national level, however, it also raises a number of concerns. The principle of national strategic development would be set by the SE not the local authority and it is unclear, at this stage, what this proposal would mean for priorities within the NPF which are not site specific, for example, the Clyde Riverfront and Clyde Gateway. Further clarification is required from the SE over this issue.
Moray Council: Objectives for greater inclusion are limited unless the NPF is subject to more open and transparent debate than occurs at present. Although applications can be processed by local planning authorities, the need for these developments ( e.g. wind energy, bypasses, etc.) cannot be debated. The ability to 'call in' is not new but will probably be exercised more frequently. Whilst the use of such powers must be seen to expedite decisions rather than cause 'delay' (as has occurred in the past) they must avoid being used where SM are determined that proposals of national importance should not be frustrated by local objections.
North Lanarkshire Council: The broad intentions for the next NPF are welcome. However, while it is appropriate to use the next NPF as a link between policy and investment in infrastructure, further clarification is needed on how this is to be achieved. Furthermore, careful consideration needs to be given to what is included in the NPF, the level of detail, and the means by which land use implications of policy are to be assessed. One of the overall aims of the White Paper is widening inclusion:, if the National Planning Framework is to become the vehicle for identifying the need for developments such as waste treatment plants or major transport or energy facilities, it will be important to ensure that the widest range of opinions, including those of communities and individuals, are fully able to contribute to the debate on them. The section of the White Paper on 'Creating Confidence that views are taken fully into account' rightly emphasises the need to "ensure that the views of local people are given greater and more consistent consideration in the future". It is essential that this should, above all, apply to the largest scale of developments. Clarification is therefore required on the type and scale of development to which this would apply, and to the process for dealing with them. Local debate about impacts, detailed location and design matters will be frustrated if those who are affected feel they have not had sufficient opportunity to contribute to the debate on the need for the development in their area.
Shetland Islands Council's (interim response): We recognise the reality that decisions about nationally significant projects such as motorway extensions, superquarries and the like are typically made by the Scottish Ministers following a public inquiry and that in practical terms the proposed new arrangements will largely reflect that reality in those instances where the proposal is not cleared back to the Planning Authority for decision. The fact that a project is nationally significant does not, however, mean that the rights and opinions of local communities can be set aside. This would be directly contrary to the Executive's wish for wider inclusion expressed elsewhere in the White Paper. There is scope for substantial improvement in the way we as a society take these major decisions and we are involved in a European project aimed at developing best practice in one particular area, namely nuclear waste. There is a need to establish ground rules for the consideration of national projects so that the deliberations of Ministers and Parliament can be properly informed and it can be demonstrated that local concerns have been listened to. Issues that arise in this connection include resources of time and expertise available to local communities and the role of local stakeholders in developing parameters for a project and monitoring its subsequent operation. Any such guidance will need to take account of the processes prior to consideration by Parliament, including the development of the National Planning Framework. This is also an area in which we have particular experience and we would be willing to engage in more detailed dialogue if, for example, a Planning Advice Note is contemplated.
South Lanarkshire Council: The proposed change introduces a degree of uncertainty and confusion over the role of the local authority in dealing with planning applications of national significance. During the consultation period the local authority would normally highlight/negotiate on issues that are raised through the consultation process. The proposed system reduces the role of the local authority to that of an administrator. This process could lead to delays and confusion with the public and developers on where the responsibility lies with assessing the application.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Health & Safety Executive: We believe major accident hazard sites and Pipelines need to be included in the national planning framework requiring national policy. Development plans need to provide a clear vision of how or if development should proceed around MAH sites and pipelines. This would also require guidance as to what Scottish ministers consider to be tolerable risk. It may be that all MAH sites and pipelines may be "national developments" and any significant developments around them, "major developments.
The Development Industry
British Aggregates Association: Aggregate production is a key element in the development of the nation's infrastructure (houses, schools and transport etc). The White Paper appears to be recognising the importance of this by suggesting a new hierarchy for planning which could mean aggregate planning and mineral extraction being discussed at national level. We believe that this would be beneficial for all interested parties. One specialist central office, rather than a number of local offices that do not always have the resources to effectively handle this delicate subject, would handle the subject of aggregates and minerals planning.
Other Businesses
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: With regard to national developments, we support the fact that the need for these developments will be debated at national level, but we also see that there is still a place for public local inquiries to be held into controversial projects, in order that a balanced consideration of the detail of development may take place.
Arqiva: We would wish to see support for the public broadcast services along with telecommunications and other communications services given via clear core policy statements. Policy on communications tends to be narrow focusing only on one sector. Technology will develop, comments on the next generation of highband communications is welcomed but emphasis must be to have a broad communications policy. Arqiva would welcome opportunities to advise and input to the frameworks preparation in this area.
Association of Electricity Producers: Planning policy should not be considered in isolation. With specific reference to energy development, UK Energy Policy should play an overriding part in determining the type and location of developments proposed in the National Planning Framework ( NPF). At present 50 % of Scotland's electricity demand is met by two nuclear power stations. The NPF should take into consideration the ongoing provision of this supply.
Civil Engineering Contractors Association: We welcome the recognition that some planning decisions are of national strategic importance and are pleased to see this introduction.
Scottish Chambers of Commerce: The intention to allow Ministerial discretion over national infrastructure projects has the potential to fast track or at least significantly speed up decisions of crucial importance to Scotland's economic growth, particularly in respect of the transport projects that will hopefully follow the establishment of the National Transport Agency.
Scottish Rural Property & Business Association: We believe that National Developments should include projects that are of national importance notwithstanding that they may be small-scale. Wind turbines are an example where the contribution of even a small-scale development may be contributing to national renewable energy targets, and should therefore be considered national projects.
Professional Organisations
RICS Scotland:RICS Scotland notes the proposals concerning national developments. With reference to Appendix 3, it would appear that the Scottish Ministers would, potentially, have the facility to allow matters to run on indefinitely. We believe it is essential that some facility is available to developers to bring matters to resolution. We suggest that ministers should not have the ability to extend this process by more than six months, including the initial 28 day period.
Scottish Environmental Services Association ( SESA): Subject to certain caveats, SESA supports the principle of a national planning hierarchy which could help to focus resources. They believe that certain waste management facilities, such as a large energy from waste facility and a waste and resource park, should fall within the definition of a "national development". However, there needs to be clear guidance from the Executive. For example, "national" could be determined based on one, several, or all of the following criteria: tonnage of waste handled, the type of waste, the land-space and contribution to national objectives. SESA would be happy to work with the Scottish Executive to draw up criteria for waste management developments. SESA propose that the Scottish Executive must be bound by a timetable when making a decision on an application for a "national" development, otherwise significant delays could occur.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Maclay, Murray & Spens: With regard to national developments, we support the fact that the need for these developments will be debated at national level, but we also see that there is still a place for public local inquiries to be held into controversial projects, in order that a balanced consideration of the detail of development may take place.
Muir Smith Evans: In relation to national developments we recognise that these will mainly be defined via the forthcoming revised National Planning Framework. In our view, the new NPF will therefore have to be considerably more project specific than the current document. This raises the issue of the status of the NPF. Should it become part of the 'development plan'? For example, if the NPF designates a 'corridor of growth' between Glasgow and Edinburgh, it should have teeth to ensure that this objective is not undermined by strategic or local development plan policies (for example green belt).In addition, we consider that ministers should have limited flexibility to define a project as being of national significance and to therefore 'call it in' for their own consideration and determination.
Paull & Williamsons: It has always been the case that national policy cannot be questioned in local decision-making and what seems to be proposed here with 'national' developments is that, in certain respects, national policy should be given a stronger spatial dimension. We have no problem with that. However, it will be important that the procedures for the National Planning Framework should be open and participative. If these key policy decisions on 'national' developments are made behind closed doors, the system will quickly fall into disrepute.
Academic Bodies and Individuals
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: The relation of National Developments to the NPF is welcome. No national development should be able to go through on delegated powers without a statutory public process.
Community Councils
Charlestown, Limekilns & Pattiesmuir Community Council: We are appalled at the proposal to remove so-called 'nationally important' developments from the public inquiry process. This represents a serious centralisation of decision making (when Devolution promised to bring decision making nearer to the people). The merits or otherwise of such potentially high-impact proposals must be explored in public, however long and costly the process.
Currie Community Council: Unclear whether the public will have any say about "National Developments". Do they have to go to a court of law and incur considerable expense if they wish to object?
Grange-Howard Community Council: Although possibly outwith the scope of the Paper there is no reference as to how the Scottish Executive and local authorities and the utility companies will finance the infrastructure investments they have to make, nor how finance and borrowing approvals will be allocated between authorities and to particular projects. Hopefully the awaited development strategy proposals of the Scottish Executive, due for publication this autumn, will deal with the vital questions of capital finance and administration that clearly arise. The system must be capable of effective and meaningful planning that contributes to an economic and administrative climate which encourages and assists firms to grow in their respective industries across the economic sectors.
Greengairs Community Council and Greengairs Environmental Forum: We are concerned that the developments to be included in this stage of the Hierarchy should be approved through public consultation with a definitive list being an integral part of the National Planning Framework. All National Development planning applications should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, remembering that the bigger the development the greater the potential impacts on the affected area and its communities. Appeal only to the Courts would completely exclude the public from the appeal process and ensure that social and environmental justice principles are not upheld. This would be contrary to our interpretation of the Aarhus Convention and Human Rights Legislation.
Hillhead Community Council: Although cross-boundary decisions should indeed be facilitated, and matters of national importance should ultimately be decided by government, they should still be subject to close scrutiny. This might be through parliament, perhaps the parliamentary committee process, where matters are subject to some democratic debate and where the views of local authorities and other interested parties can be considered. Such scrutiny is a necessary part of our democracy. Failure is, we believe, contrary to the Aarhus agreement.
Kinghorn Community Council: Whilst it is recognised that national or global issues may have greater apparent significance, the problem of communities who disagree with the implications of a National need, which could destroy some aspect of that Community, 'might is not always right'. Where will the final appeal is heard.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: A potential problem with the proposals for National Developments lies in the definition of what is in the 'National Interest'. For example, when does a substantial housing development or industrial development become defined as being in the 'National Interest'? Whilst noted that communities will have a right to comment on proposals in the NPF at consultation stage, and that the NPF will be subject to both a Strategic Environmental Assessment at the national level, and to local consultation via local development plans, there is serious concern the new powers contained within the Bill remove the obligation for certain contentious and strategically important developments to have their principal and, in particular, their detail examined in public in a democratic, open and accountable manner. This Community Council therefore cannot endorse this aspect of the proposed reforms. In addition the proposals to allow Ministers to identify planning conditions considered necessary to ensure the acceptability of a proposal where that proposal is cleared back to a planning authority effectively removes the rights and ability of local ommunities and planning authorities to oppose developments. The statutory consultation period for community councils, neighbours and local residents currently lies at two weeks. In reality many local authorities allow for extra time. It is therefore essential that the statutory consultation period for the detail of National Developments be significantly extended far beyond a 21 day period.
Portobello Community Council (and Amenity Society): There is concern that some projects, such as major transport projects or urban regeneration, may be decided through processes other than planning legislation (05:1.2: National Developments).
Voluntary Bodies
Built Environment Forum Scotland: There is concern over the scope for scrutiny of the NPFthrough public examination, given the fact that it forms the backdrop for the development of other plans, policies and programmes. It was felt that processes should be in place to permit public and parliamentary scrutiny at this most strategic level, and that in order to enable this, the public should be sufficiently equipped to engage in this way. There must be transparency at this level.
Cockburn Association: The top tier system provides an opportunity to plan nationally and is a logical follow through on the devolution process, particularly when rail is now also a devolved matter.
Dumfries Friends of the Earth: Our understanding of the White Paper is that decisions made at National level could only be challenged through the courts. Obviously, this is a disadvantage in the planning process to community and other voluntary groups.
Lister Housing Co-operative Ltd: We have a significant concern that the proposals regarding National developments will reduce considerably the ability of the public and community/representative organisations to make representations about items proposed. This goes completely against the present position.
Mountaineering Council of Scotland: In our opinion the opportunity for a public inquiry, which is a basic element of the planning system, should not be removed from so called national developments. Public inquiries offer an important opportunity to scrutinise the need for, and impact of, proposed developments of all sizes. Public consultation on the National Planning Framework does not provide an adequate alternative to a public inquiry on a major development proposal. Furthermore, we have concerns that the introduction of a National Developments category will provide developers with a hiding place for their projects. The fast tracking of national developments through the removal of the opportunity for public inquiries does not strike us as a way of building trust between communities and developers.
Pollokshields Heritage: We understand and appreciate the issue of introducing a category of 'National Developments'. We note that these proposals will be determined by either the Scottish Ministers, if called-in, or by the planning authority. We are democrats and we believe that a government freely elected is entitled to govern. Most 'National' developments involve one or more Government Departments, and may well have a manifesto commitment too, [indeed, some may involve Westminster Depts., with no devolved powers, e.g. Defence or Energy issues]. Your proposals are not compatible with the Planning System, as we know it. But the
'consent of the governed principle' requires something a little more and qualifies the blank slate. We suggest your proposal is a messy fudge. Why not just require the Scottish Ministers to get the approval of the Parliament after a full airing through the relevant Scottish Parliamentary Committee process. There the views of the local authorities involved and any other interested parties
can be considered, by any mode the Committee deems. These Committees have a power that no other enquiry has: it can affect the availability of finance. Why not use the things 'Scottish' to solve problems in a Scottish manner?
Portobello Campaign against the Superstore: The decision that national developments only be dealt with by ministers takes away all local accountability. With only appeal to the courts, there is no readily accessible appeal mechanism when Ministers get the decision wrong. The imposition of this is a reaction to the M77 inquiry where Ministers overturned the decision of the properly held inquiry. If a development is of national importance then the planning arguments should win the day, not the desire of the Minister.
Rural Scotland: There is a lack of explanation of how the National Planning Framework will be drawn up and applied. Rural Scotland welcomes the intention to establish a mainstream NPF but has serious misgivings that fundamental elements necessary for its success, namely the process of public involvement during its construction, are not described. In addition it has not been acknowledged that any NPF is a framework only and will not provide the necessary details about the need for, and impact of, individual developments in order to determine whether they should proceed. It is therefore very dangerous to remove such so-called national developments from potential exposure to public inquiry especially where they are likely to be imposed upon vulnerable rural communities and fragile landscapes.
Scottish Civic Trust (and Civic Trust Network): The Trust is very concerned with the proposed relationship between "national applications" and the National Planning Framework. It should be said that we have no particular objection to the proposed hierarchy of applications; indeed we see the relevance of it. However, we do not support a different process for national applications and are concerned with the idea that these can be advanced through the NPF, which has little formal opportunity for scrutiny. We also do not support the proposal that "national applications" cannot be challenged on grounds of need, only detail. This is undemocratic and flies in the face of the general thrust of the White Paper.
Scottish Federation of Housing Associations: The reformed planning system must give the Executive statutory powers to transfer publicly owned land for social housing provision to Communities Scotland or its agent at nil value as the preferred option for disposal where there is demonstrated housing need.
Scottish Stone Liaison Group: It is the responsibility of government to clearly define its policy aims and objectives and to prioritise these within its overall legislative programme. Once the direction of the core policies have been quantified then all subordinate policies have to relate to, and be reconciled with, these core policies to produce a cohesive, practicable and indivisible set of policies which, when operating together, achieve the desired objectives. So too with Government policies that relate to global warming, climate change, sustainability, material price and suitability and the needs of Scotland's built heritage
Scottish Wild Land Group: We object strongly to the proposal that National proposal will have the democratic right to challenge on the grounds of need removed. This has always been an inherent key part of the planning control system and one at the heart of democracy and inclusion. For these proposals, the Scottish Ministers sit as judge and jury over the proposal, having designated a project as of 'national' significance and then removing the right of democratic response on the proposal. This method of riding roughshod over citizen's rights will be likely to cause more disgruntlement and dissatisfaction, and possibly more disruption than an proper accountable system.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: We believe the procedures for looking at these developments must fully consider and assess environmental impact given the scale these type of developments. Such assessments must be of the highest standard, adopting best practice that sets an appropriate benchmark for other developments to measure themselves against. It is disappointing that this is not discussed in the paper.
The John Muir Trust: The National Planning Framework and the introduction of a new hierarchy in planning is a welcome and necessary step towards having national strategic planning. This is essential for many of the most pressing planning controversies currently existing in Scotland. In many cases, the local planning committee cannot address the issues which are uppermost in objectors' minds. For instance, there may be many applications for windfarms throughout the country being considered at the same time. If, for instance, only ten percent of those applications need to go ahead to fulfil the Scottish Executive's target renewables quota, then there is no way for the most appropriate applications throughout the country to be selected. However, it is critical that the National Planning Framework does not become a vehicle for fast-tracking controversial decisions, using the "national interest" argument to rule out any rigorous examination of the plan by all interested parties. The John Muir Trust, therefore, supports the call that the NPF should be subject to an 'Examination in Public' chaired by an independent professional who can hear and consider evidence and make recommendations. The suggestion that the planning applications which come under the NPF would only be able to be challenged in court is unacceptable. There must be a way in which those directly affected by the development, or with a legitimate interest in the outcome, can challenge the application if there is legitimate cause. There is a question about whether the White Paper proposals would adequately take into account the Aarhus Convention but social justice alone would require that this aspect is re-thought.
West Kilbride Amenity Society: We need clarification on the new process for determining "National Developments" before we can agree that it is an improvement.
Private Individuals
Bramley, EM Mrs: I have concerns over the removal of 'so called' nationally important developments from the public inquiry process: My experience of these projects is limited to energy (wind farms), (Interconnector-Northern Ireland) and minerals extraction (Lingerbay Isle of Harris) on all of which applications I have made representations at subsequent Public Inquiries. In such cases we were almost without exception involved with and supporting local people/individuals/community councils, many of whom were either unfamiliar with the planning system or unsure of the processes involved. Of concern too, is the way in which applications seemingly on a small scale initially are allowed to 'grow' by extension i.e. housing schemes: wind farms (Novar) telecommunication masts. In such cases the apparent wish to centralise some decision making -for 'nationally important developments' could result in small scale initial projects which were then allowed to 'grow' in a landscape or designated area which would not initially have been deemed an acceptable site for development. It is often the great vigilance of individuals or small communities who alert the wider public/ NGO's to such matters and any attempt to centralize decision making would take away from people this hugely important 'watch dog' role over their locality and their cherished landscapes. In rural areas the role of Community Councils is critically important in terms of their 'planning scrutiny' role as often the ability/facility for local people to see relevant documents within time scales can present difficulties.
Bryce, Ian: There is no real definition of "national development" in the White Paper, nor any indication of who would decide if a particular proposal came into this class. It would be, in practical terms, undemocratic if the Scottish Ministers could both decide without procedural challenge that a particular proposal was for them to consider and then go on to decide the outcome. One of the options said to be allowed to the Scottish Ministers if they should decide to call in is to decide on the basis of the documented application (presumably including any objections). However, for a development of national importance some sort of public consultation or hearing such as a public enquiry ought surely to be mandatory. Finally, it is suggested that a decision could the court would presumably have no right to adjudicate upon the merits, but only upon the compliance or otherwise with procedural requirements, and that would not be a worthwhile right of appeal.
Campbell, RD Mr: The proposed 'consultation' on National Developments will not allow the public to question developments on the grounds of 'need', which will clearly be a vital factor should any development turn out to be a hugely expensive 'white elephant' such as the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, where the Executive's own advisers were extremely pessimistic as to its likely patronage and financial viability!) is absolutely fundamental to the question of a major project proceeding further, and hence deserving of the thoroughest scrutiny in the public arena, it beggars belief that the Communities Minister is now actually seeking to avoid public scrutiny of such an important aspect. I am also concerned that, such 'consultation' will simply take the form of a tick-box exercise. Ministers will be empowered to intervene where necessary to expedite decisions, which will then be final, subject only to appeal (by applicants) or judicial review. In view of past instances where Ministers have decided that projects will inevitably proceed, notwithstanding massive public opposition and damning reports as to their viability compiled by their own advisers, or reporters (e. g. GARL and M74extension), this certainly does not inspire confidence that expert, or public, opinion which does not fit a pre-set agenda will carry any weight whatsoever as regards Ministerial decision-making. On the contrary, it bears all the hallmarks of the proposals being a Developer's Charter'.
Chilton, D&B: The removal of "nationally important developments" from the public inquiry process is an unwarranted restriction of our freedom to comment on and control our environment.
Francis, Ian: All strategic planning decisions taken by government at the national level, including the National Planning Framework, should be open to challenge and public inquiry.
Gibson, HN: I hope that the National level proposal will not result in pylons in the Highlands, as we can already look back with regret and disappointment at pylons from the past and their impact. Could the executive consider local power generation, for example, in a broad strategy for Scotland's power needs? And I hope that the National level would not feel the need to supply England. Why should pylons spoil Highland views to supply English needs?
Hopgood JA & Uprichard P: The White Paper proposes the removal of national strategic decisions from full scrutiny through public inquiries. These decisions should remain open to challenge and public inquiry.
Hopkinson, Sue: Transmission of energy will clearly be a national development to be proposed and debated in the context of the next National Planning Framework. However, the transmission infrastructure remit is still firmly with the DTI, and the Minister for Energy's Paper of July 21st 2005 spells out in uncompromising terms that he believes that the private sector is best placed to decide exactly what energy infrastructure is needed and that this will involve introducing transmission lines in remote areas with no benefit to the local communities. 64-65 refers to consent for overhead lines and decisions in respect of ..."associated electricity grid upgrades". Another useful example could have been the consideration of the relative costs of undergrounding transmission lines to safeguard the environment. There is apparently no locus in which the Executive can consider the desirability of sub sea electricity transmission, currently ruled out by the DTI. This must hamper the state of the art planning for Scotland's future envisaged in the White Paper.
Framework, should be open to challenge and public inquiry.
Murchison, Malcolm: I am writing because, though I find much to agree with in the White Paper, I am uneasy about the plans for national developments outlined in 5.1.2 and Appendix Three. It seems to me that, in the legislation, when it comes about, there should be at least guidance, or, better, rules, as to when a planning inquiry is required, or a hearing, or simply a determination. The 2008 Planning Development Framework is not yet available. It is in any case not clear, from a perusal of the White Paper, to what degree ministers will be bound by its provisions or confined by its subject matter. I can well imagine cases where projects of great importance are held up indefinitely by complex wrangles, and, in many such cases, a power on the part of ministers to determine the matter would, I fully agree, be beneficial. I can also imagine cases where a development is expedited in the wrong place when much better alternatives are available.
Piggins, J M Dr: The definition of "National Developments" appears to allow the Scottish Ministers power to expedite a wide range of developments: "substantial water treatment.. installations" are cited as an example. Giving Ministers such over-arching power does not sit well with the overall objective "to ensure that local people are involved properly in plans". I note with concern that "Ministers' decisions on applications would be final. I would like to see the range of developments subject to this procedure more limited and clearly prescribed. Even then, clearing the application back to the local planning authority should be the normal procedure.
Smith, RL: I am concerned that national developments should have an effective system of review. National decisions should not be removed from the level of local communities. A judicial review does not form a sensible mechanism for access to justice in environmental matters.
Politicians and Political Groups
Scottish National Party: In designating developments of national significance, it is unclear again, the level of public, indeed, parliamentary involvement and scrutiny.
« Previous | Contents | Next »