« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Equality
Local Authorities
Dundee City Council: These measures are welcomed as an aid to the greater efficiency and effectiveness of the appeals system and should increase public confidence.
Falkirk Council: In relation to the proposals surrounding appeals, most of these are welcomed, in particular the screening of appeals to reject those with little chance' of success and the reduction of the timescale in which appeals can be submitted to 3 months. While this could result in an initial flood of appeals, eventually these would work their way through the system to a more realistic level over time. The ability to return spurious applications should also help to keep numbers down. As material considerations may change between the time an application is refused and the time an appeal is heard, it is assumed that under the new proposals, where appeals would simply be a review of the decision taken, these will not be considered and a new application would have to be submitted as the proper way to address these.
North Lanarkshire Council: The changes to the Appeal system are supported as providing a better balance between the parties.
Renfrewshire Council: The proposals to streamline the appeals system are welcome and will assist in speeding up the appeal process and diminish and reducing the sense that applicants have an advantageous position.
Development Industry
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): While our clients have no particular concerns about the principle of introducing a process that allows early determination of planning appeals that clearly do not merit extensive consideration, the justification for this approach in the White Paper is based on the desire of the Executive to 'diminish the sense that applicants have an inherently privileged position in the planning system'. This approach seems to be a recurring theme behind many of the proposed amendments and is a cause for concern. It appears that the reasoning behind many of the proposed alterations to the development management process is driven by a desire for the Executive to be seen to addressing a perceived imbalance in the operation of the planning system rather than actually fixing an identified operational problem with the current system.
The Buchanan Partnership: The proposed changes to the appeal system, in terms of rationalising the process for determining appeals, are noted. However, a clear distinction needs to be drawn between improving efficiency and fairness, and simply limiting the rights of the appellant.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: Appeals are not in our view a method by which to "to circumvent the local decision-making process ". Such language is typical of the current culture of hostility towards development and we are disappointed to see it reflected in the Paper. The tenor of the approach to appeals also threatens the consideration of a right to appeal to an independent authority.
Professional Organisations
RICS Scotland:RICS Scotland supports the proposal to make greater use of hearings, although we do note that this may bring additional burdens and cost to the Planning system. We oppose the proposal that appeals should be determined only using the package of information originally submitted with the planning application.
Community Councils
Broughty Ferry Community Council: We would strongly support a right of public notification procedure ( RPNP) as proposed by the RTPI (Scotland). If it were available for clear contraventions of the Development Plan, the new importance attached to updating/complying with the Development Plan would mean it would only be used sparingly. Its mere presence would serve to deter blatant attempts at contravention. There should be no charge for the RPNP.A limited TPRA would, however, be a fairer option.
Errol Community Council: We strongly endorse the stated aim of restoring (or rather of introducing) balance and fairness. In particular we applaud the intention to "curb the tendency for development proposals which have been appealed to alter … without reference to the local community."
Merchiston Community Council: The proposals under the equality heading are not as good as a third party right of appeal.
Voluntary Bodies
Quarry Traffic Monitoring Group: Applicants currently have a privileged position within the planning system. Extensive discussion and correspondence take place with the applicant before and during the application process; in sharp contrast the public are excluded from the process. The current system of inviting representations from the public, then discarding them should they not accord with the views of the planning department simply brings the system into disrepute.
Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations: supports the rights for individuals and communities to sustain their objections throughout every stage of the planning process and at both local and national level. The issue is wider than solely that of a limited third party right of appeal, though there are particular reasons why that issue has become the focus of much of this debate. SCVO believes that the present appellant rights of developers, but not of objectors, create an imbalance in the planning system. We believe, as does Environment LINK, that this perceived lack of fairness is an important foundation of the feelings of alienation and sense of resentment on the part of communities and the wider public with the planning system as a whole. The Bill as drafted seems still to be overly concerned with the rights of developers and not with the views of communities. In relation to third party rights, the Executive has been keen to develop a National Planning Framework, supported by appropriate National Planning Guidelines. If these are to enjoy a sense of ownership by the wide variety of communities affected, then the content of these documents requires to be the product of meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including local communities and the voluntary sector both locally and nationally, as appropriate.
Scottish Council for National Parks:SCNP welcomes the proposal that full details and supporting material should be provided at the submissions stage so that the public can engage on the basis of realistic and fully worked-up plans. In this context, we also welcome the idea of new procedures that ensure that an appeal is a review of the decision taken in the light of the information submitted thus limiting the right to introduce new evidence to support the appeal. This practice of introducing new material widely used in recent years seriously disadvantages third parties who are opposed to a particular scheme at a public inquiry.
The Cramond Association: The new procedures must ensure an appeal is considered against the information provided at the application stage is most welcome; we also welcome the proposals for Informal Hearings, reduction of time-scale and new appeals process.
Private Individuals
Anonymous: Where a development is contrary to the development plan and is therefore subject to increased scrutiny, should the developer not also be liable to pay all the costs ( those of the planning authority and other objectors) if he then goes to PLI and loses?
« Previous | Contents | Next »