« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Statutory requirement for a Hearing
Local Authorities
Dundee City Council: The Council wishes to be satisfied as to how the local hearings system is to operate.
East Dunbartonshire Council: It is questionable whether requiring the Planning Authority to hold a public hearing when it has received a recommendation from officers for refusal and (is minded to refuse the application) is a good use of public resources. Such a procedure should only be invoked where it is emerging that the Planning Authority might be minded to grant an application in such circumstances.
Highland Council: The proposal for certain Planning Committee decisions to thereafter have to be referred to the full Council does not address the situation in Highland where most decisions are taken at Area level. If this proposal for reference up is to be retained then it should be from Area to main Committee or from main Committee to Council rather than always direct to the Council.
Renfrewshire Council: The Council already holds Hearings but these take place prior to the Planning Board meeting and do not usually involve all the Board members. Mandatory hearings for major applications in front of the whole Board with all interested parties participating would be time consuming but if restricted to the circumstances proposed, this could be a useful method of ensuring that the Board have all the relevant information and opinion prior to making its decision. As is the case in Renfrewshire at present it would be beneficial to hold the Hearings in advance of the Committee to allow officers to reflect the issues raised in the report to the Committee.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: This is particularly needed given the rejection in the White Paper of third party rights of appeal. Clearly further work to define "significantly contrary" and "significant objections" will be required. SEPA would consider for example that "significantly contrary" would include an application which may result in significant environmental effects which would have been identified by Strategic Environmental Assessment had the proposal been included in the Development Plan. SEPA would also consider that "significant objection" should include any outstanding objection from a statutory consultee.
Scottish Water: The term 'development significantly contrary to the development plan' needs further definition. Welcomes the desire for more transparent decision making. However, with the inherent challenges we foresee in land use planning noted under 5.1.2 and the "bad neighbour" tag, we are concerned at the potential for the proliferation of planning hearings in relation to Scottish Water applications for new and upgraded wastewater treatment works and the additional cost and delay impact of these.
Development Industry
Bett Homes: Although we would support the increased role for Local Hearings this would be on the basis that adequate timing is provided. Whilst Bett Homes recognise the importance of community engagement in the development process we would not support the introduction of a statutory requirement to consult. The White Paper also outlines a proposal for community consultation exercises to be viewed as a "material consideration" when determining a planning application. Bett Homes have qualified support for this proposal. However, it is essential for the Executive to provide robust advice to developers and communities outlining examples of best practice for community engagement.
Grosvenor Investments: We very much welcome this proposal. It would be more useful to be able to give a short presentation of the proposals and provide visual aids to Local Authority planning committee members in order to aid understanding of the impact and nature of the development at an early stage of the process. We would also welcome a consistent approach to this proposal across all the Local Authorities. This will inevitably aid transparency f encourage dialogue and promote understanding.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: Statutory requirements for "hearings" associated with any major development contrary to the development plan, simply introduces another layer of red-tape into an over burdened process. The current system of referral of such applications, where they are recommended for approval, should be scrutiny enough.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: The White Paper proposes a Hearing is held by the planning authority when major developments are contrary to development plans. In the planning circumstances of Granton Waterfront there is no up to date approved development plan and it will be some time before the new City Local Plan is approved. The draft Local Plan for this area was adopted in 2002 and was based on Supplementary Planning Guidance approved in 2001. It is quite possible that development proposals could be promoted contrary to this draft development plan. The White Paper does not address this situation; it assumes there is an approved development plan in place.
Other Businesses
British Energy: We support the proposal for mandatory public hearings to take place prior to planning committee determination. This will aid transparency and participation, provided the scope and timescales of such hearings are stated and adhered to.
Civil Engineering Contractors Association: We acknowledge that, if wider rights of appeal are not available to the public, then planning deliberations will have to be more rigorous and thorough in their early stages. Developers will have their part to play in listening to local issues and taking due cognisance of local sensitivities.
SITA ( UK) Ltd: The Company does not support the concept of hearings to be conducted during the determination process. Such a quasi-judicial process would significantly extend the determination timeframe and increase costs to the development industry when there are sufficient avenues currently available to any third party that wishes to comment on an application to do so. Hearings would seem to add little of substance to the ability of a third party to influence decision makers, and may result in a 'tiering', where the availability of resources govern the extent to which third parties can utilise a hearing effectively.
Tarmac Ltd: Understand the principles behind such forums and the benefits to public participation. For developer or objector they can be beneficial in ensuring a key point in the decision is not lost among a long or complicated determination. Our overwhelming experience is that the short debate at committee tends to be an emotive affair and can be of disproportionate effect on the decision of elected members. The hard work that may be undertaken by applicant and officers to reach report stage can be lost in favour of the more appealing orator. There can be a general increased pressure on Councillors to look to their constituency rather than the material considerations of the planning decisionSome form of control through planning advice or legislative penalty might be the means to allow extended use of hearings without further hindering good rapid decision-making. In order to avoid the drawbacks highlighted above, it might be appropriate to have the hearing a short time prior to the decision date and then given the interested parties the opportunity to present their statements in written form at the closure of the hearing for the committee to then use in their subsequent determination. This would then be more in line with the hearing or inquiry systems at the planning appeal stage. The increased occurrence of hearings will no doubt reduce the number of planning applications that are able to be determined at planning committee meetings. It is therefore essential that the allied proposals to divert more applications to delegated powers are carried through or that local authorities are more prepared to hold more regular committee meetings. This will be at greater expense to the authority but would go some way to avoid a backlog of decisions that would otherwise be inevitable.
WBB Minerals: The hearings must be supervised/shadowed by an independent reporter in case the proposals are refused and the applicant was to appeal. If this scenario did arise, having a Reporter present at the initial hearing would avoid unnecessary duplication at any subsequent appeal.
Professional Organisations
Scottish Association of University Directors of Estates: A potential area where the process could be hampered is through the requirement to hold hearings and for major sites that do not accord with the development plan. This could potentially lead to an increase in costs, time and use of resources. Holding pre-application consultations will also add to expenses and may compromise confidentiality of major plans. Local development applications should be speeded up, but with the disadvantage of being heard by a local review body, which may not hold an impartial view, should it go to an appeal.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Hargest& Wallace Planning: This will help to overcome inconsistencies between planning authorities about rights to present to Committees prior to planning decisions being made as occurs at the current time. It is noted that such hearings are proposed where the proposal is contrary to the development plan and have objections. Of course in a large number of instances accordance with the development plan is not clear cut and it is only after detailed examination of the evidence can it be concluded that a proposal is or is not in accordance - therefore the right to a hearing should include developments that are potentially contrary to the development plan. The departure hearing process should not apply in the case of out-dated Development Plans. In these cases applications should be considered on their merits and no Development Plan primacy should apply it should be treated as a material consideration. It is clearly unreasonable and contrary to natural justice if an applicant's proposal is being judged as contrary to an outdated plan! Outdated Development Plans should only have the same material status as an emerging Local Plan. Departure hearings are dominated by objectors to the proposal. This should be balanced by encouraging supporters to speak and a review of public opinion to include those not included in the planning consultation.
Keppie Planning Ltd: The proposal that there be a statutory requirement for hearings for major developments that are significantly contrary to the Development Plan and have attracted significant objections is currently in place with the Development Plan Departure Hearing procedure. If it is the intention that such hearings should take place for development proposals where there have been significant levels of objections but the proposals are in compliance with the development plan then this would be something new.
Muir Smith Evans: We would welcome a greater use of hearings. We do note however that many participants in hearings (both community and applicant) believe that a view, previously reached behind closed doors, will prevail regardless o what is said at the hearing. Also, from experience, we know there is a real risk of committee members 'showboating' in front of objectors leading to decisions against the advice of their officers. There is a confidence-building issue here, which may be assisted by the reform of the system for local government elections. Certainly some form of better training for elected members will be required.
Academic Bodies
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: For major developments the idea of hearings is welcome but we assume that the public are still able to make representations on these matters to the planning authority.
Universities Scotland: A potential area where the process could be hampered is through the requirement to hold hearings and for major sites that do not accord with the development plan. This could potentially lead to an increase in costs, time and use of resources. Holding pre-application consultations will also add to expenses and may compromise confidentiality of major plans. Local development applications should be speeded up, but with the disadvantage of being heard by a local review body, which may not hold an impartial view, should it go to an appeal.
Community Councils
Broughton & Pilrig Community Council: We are concerned that in respect of major applications there appears to be no provision for a hearing if these are broadly in line with the local plan, as opposed to being at variance with it. There may be good and many-fold reasons to object and hold a hearing in respect of a proposal that aligns with the local plan but at the same time is devoid of design quality, se of appropriate materials etc and is the subject of large scale objection.
Broughty Ferry Community Council: These are a good idea where planning authorities do not already hold hearings as they do in Dundee, where first and third parties are allowed to speak to the Planning Committee irrespective of the type of application (major or minor). However, the Committee still acts as judge and jury. There is no independent assessment for third parties.
Culter Community Council: We are pleased that Hearings will be mandatory but since they only take place after the formal application has taken place and a significant number of objections received they are useful only in allowing councillors to better inform themselves through questions while the 'stakeholders' - including local people and community representatives - are airing their views. In our opinion they cannot replace pre-planning consultations which are more conducive to early and meaningful public engagement but are complementary to them.
Currie Community Council: The addition of hearings will assist the democratic process but is not sufficient. As with "National Developments", it appears that objectors have to go to a court of law and incur considerable expense if they wish to object. This is manifestly unjust and is likely to continue the demand for a TPRA.
Errol Community Council: Although we accept that hearings can be useful, especially in allowing the planners to convince members of the public that their views are being taken into account (even, or perhaps especially, when that is not actually the case), we are not convinced that they are well-suited to allowing members of the public who are not practised in such public, and often confrontational, occasions to make their case most effectively
Greengairs Community Council and Greengairs Environmental Forum: In our experience, Local Public Hearings are the most undemocratic and unprofessional part of the whole planning system. A major overhaul of the entire process would have to be undertaken before we would have any confidence of being respectfully, equally and effectively included at this stage. We have discussed this at length and have come to the conclusion that the only measures that would undo the damage done and promote any trust, would be if the whole proceeding were recorded on camera and we had right to appeal if we believed the process to be less than professional or inclusive. Accountable procedures need to be put in place as a minimum with community interest groups, public representatives and NGOs' being included in the process. Obviously much more easily accessible advice and information would assist in ensuring the quality of input from the public, guidance on what constitutes a planning consideration and what doesn't would be a start.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: The proposals represent a step in the right direction, however again there may be potential problems with the proposals in practice. In the first place who decides what is a significant departure from the development plan and does this mean that developments which depart from the development plan will no longer be called in by ministers for a public inquiry if subject to a hearing? Likewise, who decides what constitutes significant objections? At present it is not necessarily the number but the weight of objections which is one of the primary material considerations? Better to make all proposals which are designated as 'Major Developments' subject to hearings whether contrary to the development plan or not, and attracting 'significant objections' or otherwise.
Mid Atholl, Strathtay & Grandtully Community Council: Hearings are proposed for such developments contrary to the development plan. Does this mean that there will be no provision for local consultation on specific major developments covered by a specified category? Will those developments covered by a specific category, and not contrary to the plan be passed 'on the nod'?
Royal Burgh of North Berwick Community Council: Much reference is made to "hearings" and our experience is that the principal hearings we are Involved in are the meetings of the planning committee at which decisions are made. While objectors can make their case at such meetings by arrangement there, is no obligation on the local authority to give the said objectors copies of the papers presented to committee members by the planning staff thus putting the objectors at a significant disadvantage? The changes in the rules for site meetings now means that the community as a whole has no means of expressing its concerns about controversial plans and the inability of individuals to question of planners at such meetings prior to planning committee meetings has made them so ineffectual as to be neglected by members of the community who are after all the customers of the system. While we respect the efforts made in the white paper to improve the planning system we feel that as a Community council and as individuals that the system is drifting further away from the customers and that is the opposite of what the whole process should be about.
Voluntary Organisations
Colinton Amenity Association: We welcome the increased use of hearings. The factors that define significance must be clearly set out. At present, planning committees conduct hearings after receiving the case officer's report containing a recommendation about whether to give or refuse consent. Hence, there is inevitably a degree of pre conditioning of member's views about the case before the hearing. How can this be overcome to ensure impartiality during the hearing and the subsequent decision? However, we do not consider that hearings are any substitute for a TPRA, although they may reduce the need for recourse to it.
Portobello Campaign against the Superstore: At present many planning authorities limit the time for hearings to five minutes for each party. Far more time and commitment from councillors and others will be required for this system to work effectively.
Scottish Renewables Forum: It is important that the Planning Bill makes clear that the enhanced scrutiny faced by major developments does not prejudice or stigmatize them because of the very fact it is to be considered in a hearing. This section fails to define what is meant by 'significance' in terms of departures from the local plan and in terms of objections and clarification is important, especially on the latter. Relevant questions are: how will the volume of objections be audited, how will the general opinion of the community be assessed and what is the threshold of significance?
Politicians and Political Groups
Kennedy, Margaret Councillor: Fife has already adopted this practice for developments significantly contrary to the development plan which have attracted substantial objections.
« Previous | Contents | Next »