« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Enhanced scrutiny procedures for certain applications
Local Authorities
Argyll & Bute Council: Whilst this is seen as a significant off-set to "third party" "rights of appeal, the need for "area" or "planning committee decisions to be endorsed by Council could lead not only to delays but an expensive and time consuming second "hearing" before notification to Scottish Ministers.
City of Edinburgh City Council: The proposals include defining applications subject to mandatory hearings. This would be beneficial in removing differences in interpretation between planning authorities and the Council's current procedures could be amended. However, the proposals also include a requirement that a planning committee's decision in such cases be referred to the Council as a whole and then notified to Scottish Ministers for determination or clear-back to Council. While this procedure incorporates elements of the current method of deciding proposals which are contrary to structure plans, it is considered to be an unnecessary delay for proposals contrary only to a local development plan in a city region. Furthermore, local authorities operate different governance arrangements and the requirement may not sit easily with the aims of Best value in decision-making. There is potential for politicising planning decisions by removing them from the remit of an independent planning committee. The Council proposes to the Scottish Executive that the procedure in city regions where two-tier strategic and local developments will exist should be flexible enough to permit local variations and not to be made a requirement.
Dundee City Council: Whilst supporting the general thrust of these proposals, the Council requests that a clear legislative definition of the categories of application concerned is offered to avoid ambiguity. Also the Council queries whether it is legitimate for Scottish Ministers to become involved in how individual Councils operate their decision making at the local level and whether there is the necessity for all applications in these categories to be notified to Scottish Ministers.
East Dunbartonshire Council: This is welcomed but clarification of procedures to be adopted when the Council's planning decision-making body is all Member.
East Renfrewshire Council: Accepted in principle although there are concerns over 2 of the proposed procedures. Firstly, the necessity to refer such decisions to the full Council is questioned on the grounds that the role and responsibilities of Committees should be a matter for each Council to decide and this could only further delay decision making. Secondly, the need for notification to the Scottish Ministers is challenged on the grounds that it represents further interference in local decision making and runs counter to the White Paper's objectives of reducing bureaucracy and delays.
Fife Council: This is an important area and reflects the Executive's desire to ensure greater consistency in decision making. Members may be concerned about loss of democratic accountability for the decision making process, but this is unlikely to be a major issue.
Moray Council: The White Paper has missed an opportunity to address the thorny issue of Councils approving 'departures' from the Development Plan, without redress for aggrieved objectors. The reforms only propose 'greater scrutiny' of procedures. The combination of these measures may lengthen not shorten the time-period for determination. Whilst affording greater inclusion, this may be to the detriment of the efficiency and performance of the Council's planning service. The introduction of statutory requirements will remove current discretionary provisions available to the Committee about whether or not to have a hearing. Given the extensive delegation already within Moray, including the level of authority delegated by the Council to its planning Committee the proposed statutory requirement to refer a planning decision to the Council will be an unnecessary duplication in decision-making and lengthen the process.
North Lanarkshire Council: Where applications are determined by Ministers, more clarification is needed on the Local Authority's involvement in the decision making process, and in any subsequent enforcement role. It is appropriate that certain types of development should require particular scrutiny. While the other proposed measures seem appropriate, the requirement for reference to full Council does not appear to be justified. It would lead to further delays in decision making and it should be left to each Local Authority to determine what matters need to be referred to full Council.
Shetland Islands Council's (interim response): We welcome the proposals in relation to enhanced scrutiny of development plan departures, but it would be appropriate to clarify -perhaps as part of the mandatory delegation scheme - responsibility for determining which applications are 'significantly contrary' to the development plan.
South Lanarkshire Council: There are no objections to ensure that developments that are not in accordance with the development plan are subject to a greater level of scrutiny and to a large extent this will build upon the current practice of this Council and indeed the referral procedures to the Scottish Executive.
West Dunbartonshire Council: These proposals are generally accepted and should not have much bearing on resources within this authority as the number of occasions such applications are dealt with will be relatively few.
West Lothian Council: This proposal is supported in principle, although it may slow the planning application process and will require to be taken account of in negotiations in processing agreements.
Non-Departmental Public Bodies
Sportscotland: We welcome the introduction of a more flexible system for processing notified applications. There are often cases where issues could be resolved through informal hearing or the application of additional conditions to a planning consent. The current system means that a lot of applications are not called in because they do not merit the time and costs involved in a public inquiry, but they still raise issues where the planning decision is worthy of scrutiny and revision which would improve the planning outcome. An increase in the number of planning applications notified to Ministers, and possibly called-in, could have resource implications for national agencies such as ourselves. This would result from our advice being sought from the Executive's Planning Division on a greater number of cases. Similarly, the possibility of us having to attend hearings would have resource implications.
Development Industry
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): Such measures should also be implemented at the national level so that a clear audit trail exists for schemes that are called in for ministerial approval etc. There should be an opportunity to discuss proposals with civil servants and their decision on proposals and reasoned justification should be made public. This is particularly important as the White Paper is proposing to give Ministers a range of additional powers in the development plan and management systems including: - the power to direct a planning authority to consider granting planning permission on notified applications, subject to conditions as Ministers set out in that Direction; and the enhanced role of Ministers in the determination of applications of national importance.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: The proposal to engage with local people prior to undertaking an environmental impact assessment relates back to the general proposal to consult pre submission of an application and again requires clear guidance from the planning authority. It would be prudent in circumstances where an EIA is required to combine consultation as it would be more effective as one exercise.
Other Businesses
Crown Castle UKLTD: Although it is unclear whether electronic communications could fall into large scale bad neighbour developments, in our experience, where there is a political sensitivity towards a particular type of development such as telecommunications, some LPAs have seen the option to categorise that type development as bad neighbour, which would bring them within the enhanced scrutiny procedure as a matter of standard practice. We are concerned about the timescales for enhanced scrutiny and need for example the ratification of a decision by Full Council which could impact on delivery of important electronic communications in the public interest.
Federation of Small Businesses: We agree that the frustrations felt by many members of the public, including our members, cannot be ignored and that the current system is in need of modernisation to better meet the needs of communities and developers alike. On balance, we accept that the regulations designed to protect the public interest, should be amended and accordingly we accept the principle of measures to enhance scrutiny of certain types of application as outlined in the White Paper.
SITA ( UK) Ltd: The cumulative impact of these additional processes on the waste management industry will be considerable, given that a significant proportion of applications generated by the industry would be likely to fall within at least one of the categories (particularly that referring to Environmental Impact Assessment). This will in turn impact upon the ability of the industry to provide a modern waste management network within Scotland by substantially increasing development costs and risk. The Company requests that the Executive reconsider the above proposals on the basis of the cumulative impact that will be experienced by industries that generate a high proportion of planning applications that would fall within these categories, and that a more streamlined approach be adopted.
Tarmac Ltd: Very many mineral developments will involve EIA. In some marginal cases a developer will volunteer to undertake an EIA. All minerals development falls under bad neighbour development and the proposed threshold for large-scale projects will be of interest. As outlined above however it is difficult to envisage specific provision in the development plan under the present system and it looks very likely therefore that by one or all of these criteria all quarry proposals will follow the route of enhanced scrutiny ( i.e. statutory pre -consultation applications, mandatory public hearings, reference from planning committee to full Council hearing, notification to ministers). We have already made comment on the first two tiers and as regards the rest state no objection to each per se but as a whole they will of course substantially increase the time, cost and uncertainty for business development. Bear also in mind that mineral permissions are firstly limited in time and extent such that most sites will involve a number of consents over the years. Secondly all minerals sites are subject to regular review under S274 of the 1997 Act. The enhanced scrutiny will therefore apply at repeated stages of quarry life.
WBB Minerals: There is simply no need to have any decision taken by a planning committee to grant planning permission referred to the Council as a whole if all matters are to be referred to Ministers. It will simply add further delay to the planning system. Planning and regulatory committees are delegated powers to make decisions on behalf of the authority. Members are trained to do so accordingly, whereas full Council may not have the appropriate training to take such decisions.
Academic Bodies and Individuals
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: We are concerned that the EIA process is problematic as it is implemented. The fact that developers provide the materials for submission creates a situation where it is in that party's interest to secure a positive result for the proposed development. There is an issue of transparency in the process which suggests that the local authority should manage the process. They could be responsible for commissioning consultants and the resulting study is eventually paid for by the developer, subject to agreed guidelines on price.
Community Councils
Broughty Ferry Community Council: We consider the final bullet point under this heading to be the most important (notification to Ministers). There should be a RPNP (or preferably TPRA) for applications contrary to the Development Plan. The other suggestions although they may do no harm tend to be more in the nature of window dressing.
Currie Community Council: There is no definition of a "notified application" -the reference on page 74 is insufficient.
Edrom, Allanton & Whitsome Community Council: We are supportive of introducing procedures to subject applications that do not accord with the development plan to enhanced levels of scrutiny. Many applications in this area are shown as "Potential departure from local plan".
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: These provisions receive our support, subject to the usual caveats about how those criteria are defined. We would particularly support provisions to have any decision taken by a planning committee to grant planning permission referred to the Council as a whole. We would however, also wish to see all applications within conservation areas and all proposals affecting listed buildings subject to the same degree of scrutiny.
Voluntary Organisations
Brethren Gospel Trusts: We support the provisions for statutory powers for the above. Planning guidance should be issued to set out thresholds for local authorities who depart from professional advice or support departures from the Development Plan.
Friends of the Earth Scotland: The White Paper suggests enhanced scrutiny of planning applications that are not in line with approved development plans (known as 'departures'). This is useful in theory, but won't apply to many controversial proposals, such as waste facilities, roads, power stations, housing and industrial development, that Ministers have directed local authorities to include in their plans, or to those proposals that arise in line with development plan policies adopted without discussion of particular sites (and therefore not subjected to neighbour consultation at the development plan stage). Moreover, departures are already notified to Ministers, so this part of the proposal is nothing new. And while public hearings may be made mandatory for departures, this is of limited value because public hearings can be meaningless. In the recent Douglas valley example, 600 objectors to three opencast mining proposals were given just 15 minutes to get across their concerns, in a room big enough for 35.
Scottish Environment LINK: The 'enhanced scrutiny' proposals would appear to be seeking to address the criticisms levelled at the system by those seeking a limited Third Party Right of Appeal. However, as they stand the package of measures amount to very little by way of new rights and may in fact cause additional problems. Pre-application consultation by good developers is already undertaken and we welcome this. However, in our experience developers can use these discussions to mislead local communities who believe that the concerns expressed during this process are taken to be a formal objection. A limited Third Party Right of Appeal serves to ensure that these discussions are aimed at resolving problems rather than a box-ticking exercise. A number of Councils already hold hearings and experience has been generally poor with the proposal simply offering an opportunity for people to vocalise what they already put in writing - there is no obligation on the Council to take these views into account. The final two proposals frequently happen already and without clear call-in criteria for Ministers the latter is too opaque to be useful.
Scottish Renewables Forum : We note that enhanced scrutiny requirements to refer all EIA backed proposals to the full Council and to Ministers may well be overly onerous where the consent is not controversial and we would suggest that a more flexible approach is taken here. Also, and as noted above, enhanced scrutiny measures should not be seen as prejudicial or stigmatizing for any particular proposal.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: This is welcome but creating a clear definition of a departure is always going to be problematic. Too many plans contain contradictory policies especially in relation to proposals for major developments which do not conform to environmental objectives.
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?
Graham, Bob: If as the document claims in the 'Executive Summary' it is the intention to make the planning system more inclusive, transparent and fair then the Scottish Executive should not be allowed to overturn a decision made by local authority unless there is evidence of nefarious practice. Simply not complying with Scottish Executive guide lines should not be a good enough reason to overturn decisions. Environmental Impact Assessments should be carried out by completely independent experts and should be available to the public for much longer periods prior to a 'closing date'. Local Authorities should not be pressurised to presume in favour of Scottish Executive policy. ( NPPG 6 and PAN 45 are clear examples of this).
Lauder, Alistair J: I wonder whether a new procedure could be introduced for such applications. For example the applicant has to submit a Notice of Proposed Development to the planning authority and that the planning authority is tasked with advertising the consultations? This would be an extension of the proposals that the planning authority should serve neighbour notifications and would remove any possibility of an application being rejected because of insufficient consultation.
« Previous | Contents | Next »