« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Compliance with Best Practice
Local Authorities
City of Edinburgh Council: Support in principle but will require clear definition of the meaning of "engagement" and of "materiality" to a planning consideration or public opinion.
Glasgow City Council: The City Council has already sought to improve engagement on City Plan 2 through the production of a Consultation Framework, early engagement on the Review, Issues and Options Bulletin, community Council awareness training, etc. Until such times as the PAN is produced, and the detail of the community engagement criteria are known, it is difficult to assess whether the SE's proposed responses (possible non-approval of plans and calling-in of applications) are harsh or not. The implications of not complying with the community engagement criteria which will be contained in the proposed PAN could be delays in plan adoption and the removal of the local authority's powers to determine certain individual planning applications. There may also be staff and financial resource implications arising from the PAN. It is hoped that compliance with the community engagement criteria should be possible without excessive financial, or other, cost to the Council.
Moray Council: Support in principle. There needs to be a mechanism to demonstrate that community views are being taken into account and that the decisions being made at application level and Development Plan policies reflect the views of the wider community. It has to be acknowledged that the planning system will not satisfy everyone. A clear and unambiguous statement of best practice for authorities to follow would be required. It is unclear where this type of proposal would sit in relation to the Ombudsman and Standards Commission. Furthermore, would a distinction be drawn between officer recommendations/decisions and local member decisions? What type of action would be taken if it were deemed that procedures and best practice guidance had not been followed?
Other Businesses
Tarmac Ltd: The Company supports compliance with best practice and indeed employs an accredited Environmental Management System. It is difficult however to see how this can be applied to a land based planning system. We are interested to read (a) that alleged failures will be taken into account and (b) that such information will come to ministers considering call in. This would be obviously being a simple but effective tool for a vexatious party. We would obviously consider that some more independent judgement should apply. Is it implied that this is a measure for extraordinary use rather than common consideration in planning applications.
The Scottish Coal Company Limited ( SCCL): Scottish Coal particularly welcomes this proposal as we have long been at the forefront in the development of planning best practice and this has been recognised by the Scottish Executive in publications such as PAN 64 addressing the restoration of former mineral workings.
Community Councils
Currie Community Council: Regarding the introduction of procedures to assess whether local people have been engaged effectively in the development plan process. We agree with this proposal but consider that this must be extended to cover actual planning applications that are clearly contentious. The effectiveness of the process must be seen to have taken proper account of local people's views as currently it appears that contentious applications are decided on party political lines. We generally agree planning authorities will need to demonstrate how they have complied with statutory requirements, but would like confirmation that this would include proof of engagement with the local community to take account of their views.
Voluntary Organisations
Friends of the Earth Scotland: Reporters will be expected to assess the quality of consultation on called-in proposals. This is welcome, but it merely addresses procedural quality, not whether the concerns raised by communities in consultation have been appropriately dealt with by the developer. It leaves developers and local authorities free to over-ride community concerns.
Helensburgh Green Belt Group: There is a proposal to audit and promote good practice. We welcome that what constitutes good practice will require an interactive process that should include public involvement at all stages.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: This is fine in theory but may prove difficult to deliver in practice as distinguishing between meaningful consultation and tokenistic notification will be problematic. This could simply create new bureaucracy and become a box ticking exercise. If existing rates of participation were to be used to judge effectiveness, many if not all, today's planning authorities would fail the test. There is also grave danger that local authorities could gravitate to a minimum acceptable level of consultation at the expense of innovation. Like hearings this appears to be a cumbersome and inadequate substitute for a limited third party right of appeal.
« Previous | Contents | Next »