« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Modernising Public Local Inquiries
Local Authorities
Angus Council: The Bill will seek to reduce the scope of enquiries to delay the examination of development plans, by using alternative methods. It is not entirely clear whether this is also referring to the use of mediation which the Scottish Executive consider will help to reduce the number of objections that need to be considered by public examination. In any event the suggestion that more use be made of a range of less formal examination procedures, such as hearings and round-table discussions is welcomed.
East Ayrshire Council: The Council supports proposals to limit the right to a PLI to cases where the subject cannot be dealt with by written submissions or more informal hearings.
Glasgow City Council: The Council welcomes a more interactive role for the Reporter through, for example, the use of hearings and a restriction on the matters which would be taken forward to the formal inquiry. These measures could help to reduce the overall timescale of the inquiry and its subsequent reporting. If the SE is going to appoint Reporters and limit departure from Reporter's findings then the Executive should bear the Inquiry costs. Depending on the number and complexity of objections received, the proposal may mean less time needing to be spent by Council officers preparing precognitions and background information for the inquiry but this could be counterbalanced by a higher number of objections requiring to be dealt with ( e.g. as a result of SEA, neighbour notification, etc).
Moray Council: This proposal can be supported. A public inquiry may not be the most appropriate method to determine an appeal, and currently requests for a formal inquiry are usually accepted without question. The proposed use of other methods would make these situations less adversarial and may encourage greater public participation in the appeal process. There would also be savings in manpower and other resources.
West Lothian Council: This proposal is supported. Consideration should also be given to allowing reporters to determine the facts they need to establish and to ensure that evidence presented addresses this requirement.
Development Industry
Mactaggart and Mickel Ltd: While it could never be said that the public inquiry process is perfect, the evidence that third parties are intimidated is at best anecdotal. There is evidence to the contrary. What is needed is a system which is seen to be fair and impartial and which provides a genuine opportunity for public scrutiny in a transparent manner. The present system may have faults, but meeting these requirements is not one of them. Consultation and dumbing-down the process is not a substitute.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Collar, Neil: Appendix 7 proposes to qualify the right to a planning inquiry. There are of course instances where an appellant wants "his day in court" irrespective of whether an inquiry is appropriate. It is therefore reasonable to require a party seeking an inquiry to give reasons for the request. However, greater guidance should be provided by the Executive on the factors to be taken into account. The White Paper does not mention instances where the reporters unit decide that an inquiry should be held, contrary to the wishes of the appellant and planning authority, because of the level of public concern. Greater guidance should be provided on the circumstances in which the reporters unit will decide that an inquiry must be held against the wishes of the appellant and planning authority. The proposal for reporters to be given greater scope to set and enforce a timetable for the process is acceptable, provided the timetable is reasonable and realistic. Appeals could also be dealt with more efficiently if the reporter is appointed earlier in the procedure and gives guidance to the parties on the planning issues which require to be dealt with, giving a preliminary indication of which issues are principal and which are peripheral, rather than the current practice of drawing up a list of every issue mentioned by any party.
Humberts Leisure Consulting:HLL welcomes increased period of neighbour notification from 14 days to 21. Notification of proposals in development plans and in enforcement appeals is also welcomed.
Paull & Williamsons: The public inquiry provides an opportunity to test a planning authority's (or an appellant's) case in a rigorous way. There will be occasions where confidence in the system requires that a proper debate should take place. A typical example would be where the planning committee refuse an application against the advice of their planning officer. The removal of the right to opt for an inquiry in such cases could affect confidence in the system. It should be borne in mind that inquiries are very expensive and are not embarked upon lightly by appellants.
Warren Consultants: We do not agree that the present Public Inquiry system is intimidating and there are a lot of benefits to their adversarial nature. The adversarial approach does bring a strong intellectual rigour to the examination of policies. Public Inquiries or examinations will never be in the nature of "a friendly chat".
Community Councils
Currie Community Council: We agree that 'public examination must become a less adversarial and intimidating process" - this means that it should also be less affected by legal interpretation of policies and manipulation than at present. We entirely agree that the present Inquiry system is intimidating and drawn out, dominated by lawyers and planning consultants, and would welcome a change to a less legal and confrontational arrangement. However, written submissions will not allow individual parties to pick up on items raised by other parties unless they have access to that information. How are they going to be able to do this and draw critical issues to the attention of the reporter? We agree that local people should 'find it easier to contribute to the [planning decision] process" at public local inquiries. There may be a danger that hearings will degenerate into legal debate; care would be needed to ensure this did not occur. It should be noted (in the context of timetables) that Inquiries can become strung out through legal debate making it difficult for witnesses and local people to meet an ever changing timetable. We have had this experience and acknowledge that there are real difficulties in creating a system that reduces the scope for point scoring. We recognise that individual reporters have done their best to allow for the comparative inexperience of people who have limited knowledge of what is expected at a Public Local Inquiry (this also applies to some consultants who have to be tutored beforehand!). We consider the proposed changes represent a considerable improvement and reduce the legal hassle.
Greengairs Community Council and Greengairs Environmental Forum: Are definitely not public friendly. If these are to be regarded as part of an effective public participation process then considerable change will be needed. We understand that there has already been consultation with a view to reforming Public Inquiries but until we know the content of the changes we cannot make reasoned input as to how they will assist in supporting effective public participation.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: The proposals to make mandatory the requirement for a public examination of development plans are reasonable, as are the greater use of written submissions and informal hearings. The question remains, however, as to the legal status of such submissions and informal hearings, they should therefore not be seen as a substitute for proper planning inquiries. whole the community council broadly supports the reforms aimed at making appeal hearings more transparent and efficient, particularly the requirement that appellants should justify their reasons for requesting a Public local inquiry rather than an appeal by written submission. We do not, however support the idea that reporters be given greater scope to set and enforce a timetable for the process. Many contentious proposals need time for complex arguments to be heard.
Voluntary Organisations
Friends of the Earth Scotland: A more participatory, inclusive approach to Public Local Inquiries should be enshrined so they become less adversarial and intimidating to members of the local community. Reporters should be given an inquisitorial role, so they can direct an appropriate level of questioning and cross-examination of witnesses. The proposal that appeal proceedings will take a 'hearing' rather than 'cross-examination' format may encourage community objectors to appear - where they are nervous about cross-examination, but risks leaving developers' cases inadequately examined. Moreover, because priorities set out in the National Planning Framework may not be challengeable at an inquiry stage on the grounds of need (currently a valid consideration) this would also mean that the case for such proposals was poorly examined. Together these reforms risk undermining rather than enhancing the value of inquiries.
Kilmacolm Civic Trust: Public inquiries put objecting members of the public at maximum disadvantage. They are unfamiliar with procedural requirements; they cannot match the developers' resources; they seldom have detailed planning knowledge; they are easy meat for adversarial lawyers; they are emotionally involved which impedes presentation; and they usually have only their honesty and sincerity as a means of making an impact. We see nothing in this documentation which addresses this imbalance.
« Previous | Contents | Next »