The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SECTION 5.3: WIDENING INCLUSION

Local Authorities

Falkirk Council: Encouragement for greater involvement at the earliest stage of plan preparation is welcomed and this should help to reduce time spent on objections later in the process. However, even with increased consultation such as identifying neighbours, it must be recognised that local communities and the general public cannot be forced to participate in the process. Many will not get involved until the impact of detailed proposals on their property is known.

Inverclyde Council: Introducing new procedures to ensure wide public participation in the formulation of development plans, including the notification of key development proposals to neighbours is recognised as being important at the Plan formulation stage but again raises the issue of financial resources and qualified/experienced staff to carry it out. Equally, introducing new procedures to assess whether local people have been engaged effectively in the development plan process has to some extent already been carried out, but a more formal process would probably give added transparency.

North Lanarkshire Council: Principles supported. Confirmation that local opinion is a material but not an overriding factor is noted.

West Dunbartonshire Council: It is accepted that there is considerable merit in trying to involve the public more in the planning process - both development plans and development management. However, it is important throughout all of these initiatives to make clear that involvement does not necessarily mean decisions will go the way of those making representations. It is important to stress that planning is about making difficult decisions and balancing a broad range of issues with decisions often meaning that there are winners and loser

Other LA Organisations

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee

The White Paper's stance on 'inclusiveness' reinforces the aims and objectives of the Consultation Statement (para. 21), and as such emphasises its central role in the process. As a result, it stresses the need for SDPAs to agree and publish a clear strategy for including stakeholders in the process from as early a point in the process as is practicable. The White Paper does not go into how the SDPA might innovate in terms of including stakeholders, or how it might construct its programme and process of inclusion. It appears to leave that decision to the SDPA, although it does indicate that a new Planning Advice Note on this theme will be published by the Executive.

Non Departmental Public Bodies

Highlands and Islands Enterprise: The set of proposals aimed at achieving greater accessibility, fairness and transparency in the planning system is welcome, particularly for its integrated nature and for attempting to tackle the deficiencies perceived by individual citizens. From a Highlands and Islands perspective, our concern would be to stress the importance of using technology to "shrink distance", so that those living in remoter communities can participate as fully in the planning system as those living in major settlements.

Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian: It is agreed that confidence in the planning system needs to be restored and that decisions are taken in the public interest. However, achieving this by focusing public involvement in planning at the front end of the process may prove very challenging unless a planning context is provided and there is focus on key areas of concern from informed analysts. If the process is not thought out very carefully there may be the danger that delays will be incurred much earlier in the process rather than later.

Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway: Concerning that progressive actions outlined in the White Paper in increasing efficiency and responsiveness will be jeopardised with open ended consultation processes. Conflicting opinions must be dealt with in a transparent and auditable manner. Great care must be taken to ensure that developer investment both public and private sector is captured and focused to greatest benefit. The additional threat in rural areas, where market failure to investment and risk aversion is high, is the planning system becomes a further barrier to investors rather than a stimulator of jobs and social prosperity.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: The principles set out at paragraph 5.3.3 of the White Paper represent sound guiding principles for ensuring transparency, accountability and engagement in the planning system.

Scottish Natural Heritage: We broadly welcome these proposals, and the intention to seek greater participation during plan preparation is entirely commendable. However, while it is relatively easy to focus public attention on developments which are seen to be real and immediate prospects, the proposed 'front-loading' of public engagement will require a considerable change in awareness of and attitudes to the planning system. This in turn will require vigorous and sustained promotional effort. Many of these proposals, such as the transfer of responsibility for neighbour notification and the requirements to report decisions to interested parties, will have significant resource implications, and it will be important to ensure that these are fully addressed. Certain proposals, in particular the introduction of mandatory hearings in relation to certain types of development, will have practical implications for SNH, and we will need to give further consideration to this when, in due course, it is possible to assess the resource commitment.

Scottish Water: (We) are legally committed to a Consultation Code in our own right under the Water Scotland Act 2002. As many of our planning applications are invariably a result of the need to comply with wider European legislation, which is linked to the aim of the white paper, we would welcome a greater understanding of Scottish Water's legal obligations in communities and more transparent support for the investment in upgrading our infrastructure within the planning system. In developing a statutory requirement based around this, greater clarity and definition would be sought over the specific details, and Scottish Water would wish to be actively involved in this process. There may be a case to develop the relationship between Community Plans and Development Plans to promote inclusion.

Development Industry

Bett Homes: Bett Homes support the general thrust of the White Paper to involve communities more in planning and development decisions. these include: neighbour notification of all Development Plan proposals. In addition there are plans to modernise the Public Local Inquiry process to make the experience more inclusive. The White Paper suggests a statutory requirement for local hearings and encourages less use of formal inquiries. Bett Homes provide qualified support of these proposal as it is considered they will allow for more community engagement and better quality decisions, however it is important that the quality of planning argument and technical information is not weakened as a result of the less formal process.

Other Businesses

Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: The Scottish Executive has been saying for some time that they wish to encourage wider public participation in the planning process in order to boost public confidence in the system. It is of concern to us that some of their proposals may only give those with a vested interest more opportunities to object and the proposals do not actually target the inclusion of important sectors of society; for example, younger professional people, the business sector and the working sector of the population i.e. those who should be involved in the planning process.

CBI Scotland: Wider engagement with local communities at the beginning of the planning process, narrowing the grounds on which a developer can appeal and more rigorous enforcement of development agreements is welcome. They should restore public confidence in the integrity of the planning system and its ability to adequately to reflect the interests of local communities.

Orange PCS Ltd: The Executive will be wary of the difficulties of simultaneously achieving both greater levels of consultation and greater speed and efficiency within the planning system. While effective consultation can increase efficiency by reducing levels of community opposition there is a risk that unstructured and unlimited consultation requirements will severely delay development decisions.

Scottish Rural Property & Business Association:SRPBA agrees with the notion of getting people involved at the outset of the process by inputting into the content of the development plan for their local area. If this input is meaningful, it will mean that a third party right of objection on individual applications is not warranted.

Tesco Stores Ltd: At Tesco we support the fundamental right of people to be heard, and believe that the correct way to achieve this is through good community consultation early in the process. As a retailer our approach to community consultation in planning is based on listening and responding to customers and potential customers. Tesco uses a range of methods to engage with local communities to gain a representative picture of the views of the whole community, including a combination of public exhibitions, leaflet drops, focus groups, consumer panels, working with local community groups, and market research techniques. An important principle of consultation is that communities are aware they are being consulted, and believe that it is worthwhile. Good consultation means representative responses that add to the debate, but don't unduly delay the process. Third Party Rights of Appeal would not have met these simple tests, and we welcome the Executive's decision to pursue alternative measures to engage the community. We welcome the proposal to undertake pre-application consultations. We support the proposal for the LPA to be responsible for neighbour notifications. We hope these proposals will form part of a wider package of measures to encourage greater engagement through the local plan process, and improve public engagement and trust in planning.

The Scottish Coal Company Limited ( SCCL): We appreciate that the planning system needs to address the issue of increasing inclusivity but this raising of expectations through enhanced consultation needs to be tempered, and the acknowledgement in the White Paper that some decisions will nonetheless remain unpopular is refreshing.

Professional Organisations

Institute of Civil Engineers Scotland: Proposals to bring greater balance, equality, openness and transparency to the planning system are welcomed as are proposals to ensure information is provided at the right time and in the right way.

RIAS: The planning system has developed considerably in the 58 years since it was introduced in 1947. Prior to that time public participation was seen as "busybody's charter". That position has certainly changed and if anything, the possibility is that the pendulum has swung too far in terms of public participation to the point where something of a paralysis is occurring in the system even though traditionally, there was a 'presumption in favour of development'. This is already well highlighted by the development lobby. Architects would generally endorse that point of view.

RICS Scotland: The general principle of greater involvement by local communities is supported by RICS Scotland, although we feel it is important that legislation must ensure this involvement does not itself become a constraint on over all planning management.

Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers

Hargest & Wallace Planning: The proposals are seeking, appropriately, to widen the basis of participation in the planning system - especially for development plans. This is supported as an objective but it is not considered that the various proposals in the White Paper will achieve this. Local Plans and Structure Plans have found it notoriously difficult to engage the wider public - only those directly affected by proposals tend to comment as do organised pressure groups (whether in favour of development or opposed to it). Any steps to encourage the involvement of those directly affected should be counter-balanced by measures to involve the wider community. Even where individuals or groups are affected there is a general lack of appreciation of the significance of the development plan compared to a planning application. The nature of development, in general terms, is that the disbenefits can often be high but concentrated on a comparatively small group ( e.g. neighbours) and benefits are often small but more widely spread. It is inevitable therefore that objectors are, on the whole, a lot more vocal than supporters. Indeed supporters are not even encouraged to participate. A neighbour notification form is an invitation to object. Similarly supporters of a local plan proposal are not allowed to participate in a local plan inquiry as only objectors to a Finalised Local Plan are allowed to appear. The issue therefore for the planning system is how to engage the vast majority of the community whose views are not heard? One approach could be to use household survey techniques. The key issues are good questionnaire design and sampling based on geographic distribution and social profiling to ensure that all groups in the community are taken into account. Resource implications are significant ( e.g. ca. £15k+ for 3000 interviews is not unreasonable) but there can be major benefits for establishing the local priorities for a development plan - indeed they could also assist in site selection subject to caveats. In terms of time requirements a well run survey can take as little as 6 weeks from concept to completion and reporting of analysis. If planning authorities used such techniques for underpinning development plans in addition to conventional techniques this will strengthen the community involvement and participation. Plans that use such approaches should be supported in the weight given to policies and proposals founded on such unbiased cross-community consultation exercises. They will also allow planners to put into context the opinions of the more vociferous objectors/supporters.

Maclay, Murray & Spens: The Scottish Executive have been saying for some time that they wish to encourage wider public participation in the planning process in order to boost public confidence in the system. It is of concern to us that some of their proposals may only give those with a vested interest more opportunities to object and the proposals do not actually target the inclusion of important sectors of society; for example, younger professional people, the business sector and the working sector of the population i.e. those who should be involved in the planning process.

Muir Smith Evans: How will public involvement be encouraged? Will it not still focus on individual proposals when they are brought forward and not on the wider (more challenging) issues at the development plan stage? And how will the quality of community involvement are assessed? It is easy to demonstrate that procedures have been followed, but not so easy to assess the quality and breadth of the involvement unless one has been present at (for example) a public workshop or a meeting of officers who are considering and assessing the information gathered.

Warren Consultants: We respect the attempts of the White Paper to improve public participation but it is an inescapable fact that many planning decisions do not lend themselves to a satisfactory compromise between opposing parties. One party may end up disappointed and no amount of public participation will alleviate their disappointment. In fact, more public participation may make matters worse. We feel that it is quite sufficient to achieve satisfactory public participation if the following principles are followed:

• No potential objector can reasonably accuse the applicant or the local authority of withholding information about a particular proposal.
• Any person or organisation that wants to support or object to a proposal should have enough time to do it to present their position both to the technical officers and the council.
• As suggested by the White Paper, the person or body that has made the representation should have a written reply from the local authority as to why their representation was either taken on board or not

Academic Bodies and Individuals

Lloyd, Greg Professor: A criticism of the current land use planning system is that it is subject to capture by different interests. This observation would apply both to development and environmental interests and for positive and negative motives. The outcome tends to be greater misunderstanding of the role of the planning system and the view that it is a closed system. The White paper would appear to be putting in place more open opportunities for engagement and representation.

Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: If the planning mechanisms are to be speeded up, how does the system allow for the time needed to take account of multiple and conflicting public opinions? There are many occasions where it would appear that important 'boundary setting' decisions that affect the implementation of the planning policy are not open to public scrutiny or involvement, e.g. (i) why is the public examination of strategic development plans mandatory but there is no provision for local development plans?; (ii) who decides or defines what constitutes the typological distinctions in the planning hierarchy (p.18)?; (iii) should the planning application use a hearing or other methods?; (iv) should a planning application be advised to become part of a good neighbour project? Overall, we welcome the emphasis on public and stakeholder involvement in consultation (elicitation of opinions rather than deciding and acting in partnership), but have concerns that this emphasis may raise expectations of empowerment of local citizens, which it will not be able to fulfill.

Community Councils

Ardross Community Council: This is all waffle as the Executive has determined not to increase the statutory power of local consultees. Without teeth this legislation will not work. What does bring the system into disrepute is member's voting consistently against their own policy, ignoring planners advice and the local community and the Scottish Executive not monitoring these decisions against what is in affect their own policy effectively enough. We look forward to the openness, but even if the reasons for decisions are invalid or weak there is little room for appeal for third parties. The Ombudsman will not look at a group's grievance only an individual's. Community Councils therefore have no opportunity to question decisions which directly affect the local people.

Auchtermuchty & Strathmiglo Community Council: 'Consultation' is we are aware a difficult concept. There must always be a temptation for a Planning Authority [or Developer] to demonise any community or group who might strongly disagree with aspects of a proposed Plan or Proposal [and we have painful experience of this here in Fife]. Most people within our communities of necessity engage best when they perceive that they are in some way threatened by a planning proposal. This is not a matter of disinterest, but of having other busy lives to lead. Our only comment in summary must therefore be that in producing the eventual legislation, you engage realistically with the difficulties surrounding this issue. For our own part, we continue to believe that properly resourced and educated 'community councils' can be a beneficial part of the intention you espouse 'to make the planning system more inclusive'. This is far too important to ever become a matter of 'ticking boxes'. To feel a confidence in the planning process, communities must have an assurance that they are also being heard!

Criaglockhart Community Council: The emphasis on public involvement throughout much of the text is welcomed. It is not easy to excite a great many people in proposals which do not directly affect them but it may be that greater site specificity on a plan will increase involvement. However, satisfaction with a plan-led system could be dependent on the flexibility of loosely worded policies which remove any semblance of 'certainty' for the public while encouraging some developers to maintain existing attitudes, thus frustrating the intentions behind the new system.

Currie Community Council: We note that the hierarchy of planning includes several references to the Courts ( i.e., the legal system) being the arbiter without any reference to objectors. It appears that objectors can only advance their case up to the planning committee stage. If this is correct, it will not prevent objectors continuing to demand a TPRA since courts will apply what the law dictates and not what may be required on good planning grounds. There needs to be a way of restoring a balance that is not solely dependent upon legal solutions. It is claimed that the objective is "to give local people better opportunities to participate in the decisions that affect them. But there is nothing to show that the views of local people will have any affect on the outcome of the decision making process. Consequently, we do not believe that the White Paper will deliver in relation to "local decisions" and "local accountability", a fairer and more balanced system, proper involvement of local people in plans and decisions about their areas and environment, and listening properly to local people in a system that considers all issues carefully without giving too much weight to any one interest.We agree that local people should be given "better opportunities to influence the decisions that affect them ". This must apply to planning applications as they arise, and not simply at development plan stage. We note the statements that suggest (but do not state) that the views of local people will influence development proposals. We also acknowledge that there will be occasions when those making decisions will be faced with issues that are difficult to judge however, as many of these decision-makers will not live in the affected area, it is only right that the affected community should be fully involved in the decision-making process as they will be the people who have to live with the decisions.

Dunfermline and Coast Association of Community Councils:

We are concerned that, with decisions being transferred to the Scottish Executive and local officers, local democracy will be diluted. People are concerned over the decision making process. Voting at elections is now at an all time low. Community Councils who attempt to involve the citizens in the democratic process operate on low funding levels with no resources to call in expert advice. The amount of finance available to Planning Aid and Environment Groups such as Friends of the Earth pales into insignificance when compared to the resources available to Developers and Government

Echt and Skene Community Council: We feel very strongly that the current, and the proposed, systems are skewed -unfairly and undemocratically, in favour of the developers. Developers seem able to manipulate the plan and force through schemes, which have strong opposition from communities. They are regularly allowed to overrule decisions taken by Councillors and Planning officers. Communities MUST have a voice in the matter, we must also be allowed the right to appeal- The system should not be just enabled to satisfy the greed and profit of the developer.

Earn Community Council: "Participation", "pro-active", "local community", and "public involvement" are words much used - but the place of Community Councils has been omitted from the White Paper, except for (2) passing mentions. No statutory status is given to Community Councils in involvement in the planning process, enabling them to reflect local opinion (which is the role of Community Councils). This area needs to be addressed, to give more local representation.

Fortrose & Rosemarkie Community Council: Widening Inclusion by making information more accessible to communities to give them greater control over their local environment and so foster environmental justice and parity can only be beneficial. For many years this Community Council has campaigned for better, earlier information to allow for more complete appraisal of a planning proposal. This has been described as 'Feed Forward' as opposed to the 'Feed Back' provided after a decision had been made. Under this heading will the proposals allow a Community Council to raise an objection either on behalf of the community or as an appellant in its own right for consideration by the proposed review body?

Gatehouse of Fleet Community Council: You want developers and authorities to involve local people in more meaningful engagement. This is a laudable aim and we hope it can be achieved; however, we can see this being a difficult exercise to complete and could be expensive for those planners and developers involved. We feel that a large percentage of objectors (local people) will feel they have been ignored if a decision goes against them. They may not have felt so aggrieved if they had not been consulted in the first place.

Greengairs Community Council and Greengairs Environmental Forum: A Website that offers access to various stakeholder expertise would be an inexpensive and useful tool in educating the public, answering questions and assisting in effective participation in the planning system. It is our experience that far from ignorance being useful, it actually creates more problems than it solves. Easily accessible information would play a crucial role in informed and therefore, effective and time saving public participation.

Helensburgh Community Council: The HCC is concerned that the many welcome references to inclusion, public involvement, participation, consultation and such words do indeed get turned into something solid, well resourced and effective. We support the Helensburgh Study Group's submission which concludes that

• although several technical and valid opportunities for the public to be consulted are listed in the White Paper, they tend to be consultation (late and reactive) rather than involvement (early and proactive),
• there is inadequate back-up envisaged for the public, and local organisations, and
• the proposals have been conceived from the planner's point of view and not with the difficulties of the public and community groups in mind. In this connection the authority should regard itself as a partner with local groups, not their leader.

The White Paper talks of supporting planning authorities (pp 53 -56) and a declared intention (p.50) to discuss financial implications with authorities, but there is no reference to supporting local community groups. If local public involvement is so important then there should be central government funding and support for it. We would like to emphasise that this support and funding should not be channelled through the planning authority since that could water down its effectiveness. It should come direct from central government to local organisations which have demonstrated their competence

Hillhead Community Council: It is impossible (too expensive) for members of the community to seek redress through the courts. Thought should be given to means of making the community voice viable in the planning process. While we welcome the proposal to make preliminary consultation mandatory, we are sceptical as to the reality. Thought should be given to protecting the rights enshrined in deeds without the ordinary person affected having to go to court against wealthy developers and property companies. Most individuals do not have the resources to do so. At the moment planning consent can be given even where the applicant does not own the property or where it is contrary to the law of contracts in the conditions attached to deeds. Appeals should be in public and objectors should also be heard.

Knightswood North Templar Community Council : This community council supports all reforms intent on widening inclusion and participation in the planning process. In particular, the proposed requirement for developers to engage in pre-application consultation with local people for certain categories of development is a welcome advance, as is the dissemination of statutory guidance governing the form and content of such consultation. This community council, however believe that the categories of development requiring consultation are too narrow. Again there are problems with regard to what constitutes a significant departure from the development plan and what will be regarded as a ' larger-scale' bad neighbour development. Instead this community council believes that all major developments and all bad neighbour developments should be subject to pre-application consultation.

Muirkirk Community Council: We in Muirkirk, have witnessed terrible mistakes and pettiness by planning and cannot complain to them and feel the problems are not being attended to. In short they appear to be a law unto themselves at the cost of prospective builders etc in our village. This situation is one we hope can be rectified by your proposed Modernisation.

New Cumnock Community Council: This area is heavily impacted by applications for National Developments and Major Developments. It is our experience that the applicants for these proposals (wind farms, open cast mining, etc.) discuss their requirements and intentions with the Scottish Executive who guide them to certain areas and then the proposals go ahead with full consultations with Scottish Executive agencies before we at the local community level are consulted at all. By the time we are consulted through the planning process once the applications and full documentation have been submitted we are basically presented with a fait accompli. The better situation would be to consult at community level during the early stage before the application is submitted. The White Paper does not appear to present any mechanisms or procedures for doing this.

Salsburgh Community Council: The White Papers insistence that 'great importance has always been attached to public involvement in the planning system and. ...the determination to improve still further the levels and quality of public participation' is to be applauded. The community council however finds some parts relating to public participation somewhat questionable.

Strathblane Community Council: Sadly it is our experience that meaningful and material involvement of local people has all too often been sadly lacking. It is local people who have an appreciation of local issues that would effect local development. For too long weighted importance would appear to have been given to the views of the transient developer, often in this area, a transient 'householder' who is never around to face the consequences of their short term objectives of making a substantial profit from turning a pleasant rural home into a millionaire's palace with the protection that accompanies that kind of development, huge houses with walls and gates quite out of keeping with the surrounding environment.

Voluntary Bodies

Cockburn Association: Encouraging young people to take an interest in the planning system is a challenge. The Cockburn Association's schools project Cockburn Crossing Points is a good example of how to involve young people in the planning system and encourage them to take initiatives in their local community.

Colinton Amenity Association: We applaud the aims in this section for a 'fairer, more balanced system', but this will not be achieved if an equitable appeal system for both applicants and third parties is not included in development management! And it is just not credible to suppose that constant repetition of the words 'fairness and balance' will produce this effect! In terms of detail, representations should be allowed on key mitigation measures, especially when consent is proposed for a controversial development. There must be clearer and stronger guidance on the criteria for notifying changes in a development proposal to people/organisations that have made representations. Such criteria are likely to vary according to the nature of the application and its location i.e. listed building/conservation area. Moreover, in a long running development there are often changes of ownership to addresses that had previously objected; we consider that new owners, especially if these are classified as neighbours, should be given an opportunity to make representations.

Dumfries Friends of the Earth: We think that most people have lives to lead and do not have the time or inclination to get involved with the planning system unless they see their interests as being directly affected. This means that the laudable efforts to secure early involvement by local people are like pushing a stone uphill, - only achieved with extreme effort -and not capable of being kept up in the long term. Put in another way, just because decisions are made with apparently inclusive and transparent processes does not necessarily mean that in reality they will be any more acceptable to local people. We also have a concern about an imbalance in the system in favour of developers, landowners, and financial interests -by comparison with 'the general public' for whom it is said and supposed to work. In our view the terms of the White Paper are such as to make this worse.

Helensburgh Green Belt Group: The variable and undefined use of terms such as consultation, involvement, participation, engagement, etc. is confusing. There needs to be clarity about what these mean, how they differ from each other and a glossary. Most importantly, consultation (late and reactive) needs to be distinguished from involvement (early, proactive and interactive) and the main emphasis throughout should be on involvement. The HGBG supports involvement (as well as consultation) in:

• creating the authority's Main Issues Report
• creating the draft Local Development Plan
• pre-application engagement with developers
• Environmental Impact Assessment procedures
• 'local authority interest cases' (currently NIDs)
• Good Neighbour Agreements

The HGBG considers that there should be much more sensitivity to the disadvantages which the public and local voluntary groups experience in getting involved in planning, contrasted with the advantages of time, money, access to expertise, paid specialists, lobbying facilities and appeals which developers enjoy. We support the Helensburgh Study Group's proposals for:

• a recognised system of 'local champions' to assist in community planning matters
• a well-funded, central and dedicated planning support service for the public
• government resources available to local community groups
• local community groups' involvement in the preparation of good practice guides.

The HGBG proposes that funding be provided for community groups across Scotland

Kilmacolm Civic Trust: The section dealing with greater inclusiveness provides us with no comfort. Pre-application consultation looks unworkable on the face of it and will be interpreted as a device to pre-empt objection on a purely speculative basis. Widespread public participation in the formulation of development plans also seems to seek prior public commitment to projects which may well change between formulation and implementation. In planning matters what you see is seldom what you get. Otherwise this section is basically about communication procedures and does not demonstrate anything like a realistic attempt to engage the public and certainly avoids empowering them. What switches decent law abiding citizens off the planning process are well known issues -such as works being started either without a planning application or in anticipation of one's being approved; conditions attached to the outcome of a public inquiry being flouted; evidence presented by developers to a public inquiry being inaccurate and self serving; unequal performance at a public inquiry because of objectors' limited resources against developers' deep pockets; and most importantly the denial of an objector's right of appeal

Peebles Civic Society: We believe that there is a need for caution in 'making the planning system more inclusive'. Our experience within Scottish Borders is that there is no shortage of opportunity to comment on planning applications, development plans and supplementary guidance. Little more than this is required. Greater consultation and public participation conflict with the aim of 'making the planning system more efficient'. Limited resources would be better directed to the provision of professional architecture and design staff to produce better and less contentious decisions in the first place.

Portobello Campaign against the Superstore: One area for change is the time and effort that goes into the appeal system with drawn-out and expensive local inquiries, both written and in public. High quality public consultation is expensive and needs qualified professionals to lead it. So, swap the barristers' fees for consultation experts' fees, the main difference being that the present system is well known and produces a result after a certain time. At what point is consultation complete and to whose satisfaction? There is going to have to be a steep learning curve in this area for developers. It is interesting to note that at a recent seminar there was a lack of understanding that without inclusion, other factors such as promoting economic growth and fitness for purpose cannot be achieved to the satisfaction of the community. We are obsessed in this country with economic growth as being the only factor by which we measure our success. Quality of life is more important and is affected by the built environment and planning decisions. Greater emphasis by the Executive and planning authorities on inclusion will increase everyone's quality of life.

Scottish Badgers: If we really mean to improve inclusion then the system requires to be open and transparent. In order to achieve this we must make data available. We attempted to access the Aberdeenshire Wide Local Plan on the Internet only to discover that it was not available unless we paid a fee of £50 and £12 post and package. We were prevented from accessing an EIA because we were told that the badger survey reports for developments are confidential. These kinds of reports should be available to bona fide enquiries and if the planning system is to improve inclusion. The cost of challenging a decision is also prohibitive for most people

Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations:SCVO supports the case made by Environment Link in support of improved efforts necessary to increase public participation in the planning process, and in particular the introduction of a limited third party right of appeal. SCVO shares the disappointment of many that this right is not to be provided in the Bill, particularly when there is widespread concern over the failure of the current planning system to earn the respect of the wider public. This issue is the one that most concerns all those involved in the planning process - the planning professionals, local authority elected members, Ministers and MSPs, media, the voluntary sector, developers and wider business interests. This was also acknowledged in the Executive's presentation at the major conference at the Edinburgh Corn Exchange held by Holyrood Magazine to discuss the draft proposals. Rather than engaging in serious efforts to realise an improved consultative process, there seems to have been a move towards more centralised control. We believe this will further alienate communities from the planning process, leading to still further and unnecessary conflict. The White Paper does not address issues of social inclusion and social justice that require to be better dealt with in the planning system. Improvements to the planning process could develop a real sense of shared ownership of local development planning as a tool in community development.

Scottish Environment LINK: There are a number of proposals relating to improving the inclusive nature of the planning system which we welcome, these include:

• Information Campaign - to publicise existing and future rights in planning over the next 12 months;
• Appeals Screening - early refusal process for appeals which do not address the reasons for refusal or do not comply with an up to date development plan;
• Neighbour Notification - to transfer to planning authorities and to apply to enforcement decisions;
• Development Plan Neighbour Notification - to apply to certain local development plan proposals;
• Public Local Inquiries - streamlining proposals;
• New Planning Advice Note - is proposed on community engagement;
• Community Engagement - is a material consideration in development plans and planning appeal inquiries, we welcome this but much will depend on what requirements are established for 'community engagement'.
• Reasons for Decisions - reasons for all decisions to be given.
• Schedule of Land Ownership - local authority interest to be shown in development plans;
• Local Authority Interests - 'notice of intention to develop' procedure to be discontinued, all local authority interest cases to be the subject of planning applications;
• Planning Agreements - to be recorded in a public register;
• Good Neighbour Agreements - to be a material consideration;
• Inclusive Design - a Planning Advice Note is proposed;
• Planning Aid Scotland - continued support;
• Awarding Good Practice - a Community Involvement category to be added to the Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning;
• Enforcement - the wide range of proposals are welcome but much will depend on local authorities being willing to use these powers.

Scottish Federation of Housing Associations: Key to the approach is community consultation on planning issues, which should be informed by existing good practice, avoiding 'nimbyism', and including running local housing development forums to ensure that local communities have an opportunity to be involved in the planning process.

Shelter Scotland: The White Paper outlines more opportunities for public involvement in the process for drawing up plans that will be guaranteed in statute. The White Paper requires a culture change in the way that planning is approached by professionals at the local level. Shelter welcomes these moves to allow local communities to have greater influence over the strategic and long term plans for their local area, in allowing development to be more widely owned in a neighbourhood.

The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland ( AHSS): Wider community involvement in the Development Planning Process is to be encouraged. The proposed restructuring of Development Plans will make the system more transparent, and should lead to all communities in Scotland benefiting from a recently released plan. For such involvement to be successful it is critical that government invests in community development and education programmes, and fully involves the voluntary sector. The AHSS welcomes these developments, and looks forward to working as a stakeholder within this system.

The Cramond Association : The new statutory procedures are welcome. However, steps should be taken to allow for the genuine interest of local people to be engaged in the Development Plan Neighbour notification by the local authority is most acceptable. It is very much regretted that the White paper has rejected Third Party Rights of Appeal. We trust that MSP Sandra White's Private Member's Bill may succeed. It is most acceptable that planning authorities give reasons for their decisions but provision might be made for a challenge to a decision to grant consent. Enforcement is considered by us to be most important and this review is welcome.

Private Individuals

Anonymous: I think it is most important that the modernised system should "make it easier for people to get involved in planning and help to shape the future of their communities". A response form similar to the one attached to this response would help people who may find composing a letter a disincentive.

Anonymous: There is disturbing trend in current planning parlance which is causing confusion to the public and not elucidation. It used to be that a new word would come up every two or three decades now one comes up annually.

Anonymous: I also welcome the objective stated many times in the document for more community involvement in the planning process but nowhere do I find concrete suggestions for achieving this involvement. In our experience community involvement requires a huge amount of time, commitment, expertise (often in areas quite new to community members) and of course there is a need for finance.

Barham, Paul: There remain many questions about how the new system is supposed to operate, how it will be more accountable and how the interests of communities, the environment and long term economic interests of Scotland will be protected. There is to be more consultation in the preparation of development plans, but precisely how is this to be achieved? How will all stakeholders (which means everyone) be canvasses - will this mean more expensive brochures delivered to every household in Scotland?

Baylis, Wendy: So often there is consultation with local people and then their opinions are completely ignored. It is as if the Local Authority thinks that, as long as the opinions are heard, then that is all that is necessary and that they can then proceed to do just what they like) be it against the majority opinion revealed by consultation. Hence the cynicism that has crept into public opinion.

. Bridges, Roy Professor: I write to urge that Community Councils be provided with opportunities to take a fuller part in formal planning processes than seems to be envisaged in the White Paper. I believe that tapping into this sort of expertise and commitment is possible and worthwhile. Since there is such a variety of community council status and activity in Scotland, perhaps the way forward is for new legislation to give planning authorities within the proposed four-fold hierarchy of possible developments power to identify community councils as stakeholders in the cases of all major and local developments in their areas of jurisdiction. Perhaps, too, community councils should have the power to question whether minor developments can be exempted from planning procedures.

Lauder, Alistair J: The inclusion of local people in the planning process is essential and their views should be given a forum. I feel, however, that the proposals may lead to the planning system becoming less clear and more discouraging to development. Local input should be at the Development Plan stage. Public hearings, consultations etc should be wide and varied to encourage participation of as many of the local people as possible. Once the development plan is determined I think that local people should only be able to comment on very limited aspects of an application. The planning regulations and laws should govern the details of a development. This would make matters more certain for users of the system. The prospect of public hearings and pre application consultations for any applications other that departures from the development plan could only serve to curtail prospective development. Most local people will base their objections on what they feel that they may be losing indeed it is the natural tendency of parties to feel that they don't want anything to change in their area and to only consider everything from their own personal interests.

« Previous | Contents | Next »