« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Development Proposals in which LAs have an interest
Local Authorities
Angus Council: The Bill will require Planning Authorities to publish a schedule of land in their ownership to which development proposals in the local development plan relate. This appears to be a new requirement signalled for the first time in the White Paper which has not been the subject of previous consultation prior to this stage. As with the proposed notification arrangements (para 4.12, 4.13) this will involve some additional work and resources and be subject to change over time.
City of Edinburgh Council: Support schedule of land ownership in development plans. This does not have major resources implications and will improve transparency of plan proposals and relationship to implementation stage
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: It is not clear from the white paper whether the Schedule will solely look at proposal sites and whether it will be limited to Local Authority interest. It is recommended that the proposed schedule be limited to proposal sites which the Local Authority have a landowning interest. A more comprehensive schedule would add further delay, be difficult to keep up-to-date and may provide difficulties in terms of data protection issues.
Dundee City Council: The Council already requires planning applications in respect of proposals by itself on land in which it has an interest. However present procedures govern and to a certain extent restrict the scope for community involvement and scrutiny. The Council welcomes the proposals the streamlining of referrals to Scottish Ministers but requests clarification as to whether it is intended to make all local authority applications subject to the full range of scrutiny measures.
East Ayrshire Council: The proposal to withdraw the Notice of Intention to Develop procedures is supported by the Council
East Dunbartonshire Council: This is welcomed as it provides an increased level of scrutiny and control over developments by Planning Authorities and will ensure best practice within service departments. The requirement for Plans to include an indication of Council land interests does not raise a technical problem for the Council but may involve additional workload. Clarification of whether this would include properties owned by arms length organisation would be welcomed
East Renfrewshire Council: The schedule of Council land ownership is accepted as necessary to complement the proposed procedures for making development proposals in which Local Authorities have an interest more transparent and subject to greater scrutiny.
Fife Council: More use made of informal hearings, discussions etc Strong support for this proposal as inquiries create barriers to engagement as a result of the intimidating, semi-judicial, nature of proceedings and time involved. Appointment by Scottish Ministers of reporters to local development plan examinations is supported as it introduces transparency and accountability to the process
Glasgow City Council: Clarification is required from SE on how this proposal should be applied to the City Plan when most sites are not allocated specifically for development. The Council should be in a position to identify land within its ownership which is affected by a development proposal identified in the City Plan. As the Plan is likely only to show development proposals of a particular nature or size, the schedule is likely to be fairly short. All local authority proposals will now require to be the subject of planning applications. In conjunction with the other reforms proposed in the White Paper, this will increase staff and resource requirements.
Inverclyde Council: This is an excellent idea, as the NID procedures are too cumbersome and inflexible and are generally viewed suspiciously by the public.
Midlothian Council: Clarification should be sought as to whether the White Paper Intends that the proposed schedule include all ownerships as is implied by the wording, or whether, as has been otherwise suggested, it is intended to apply just to land in Council ownership.
Moray Council: The withdrawal of NID procedures can be supported. In practice, NIDs are often treated and regarded as planning applications anyway
North Ayrshire Council (Chief Executive): The implication for the local authority is that its own proposals must be identified in sufficient time to be included within the development planning process if the objective of transparency and fairness is to be realised. It will also be essential that such projects are fully justified as it is proposed to limit an authority's scope to depart from a Reporter's recommendation following a Local Plan Inquiry. Notwithstanding a plan led system with authoritative and up to date policies and proposals there may be occasions when the local authority is seeking to respond effectively and efficiently to its other statutory duties. Recognising that such cases will be referred to Ministers for independent assessment and while accepting that such a process will be both rigorous and transparent a pre-determined timetable should be provided to facilitate implementation programmes.
North Lanarkshire Council: It is not clear if the schedule of land ownership applies to all land, land subject to site specific proposals, or only Local Authority owned land. Local Authorities will have information on the latter but compiling information on other ownerships could require significant resources.
Perth & Kinross Council: On the surface there seem little problem with the production of a schedule of land ownership. It is however unclear whether this should extend to all Council interest in land, i.e. leases, and where other land in Council control is required off-site for the implementation of the project e.g. land within the road boundary required for highway improvements. Clarification is required and if it is extended to all property interests then the task will be considerably more onerous. This is an additional statutory duty which will place further strain on Planning, Legal and Property Services.
Renfrewshire Council: Support in principle. The issue of potential conflict of interest where the planning authority is both the developer and the decider of the planning application is obviously a sensitive matter. The proposals set out in the White Paper are reasonable in that initially the planning authority will be governed by the same procedures as any other developer and the referral required at the end of the process is similar to the current system. One benefit not mentioned in the White Paper is that the planning permission thus obtained should be transferable which is not the case at present because of the different procedures for NIDs.
South Lanarkshire Council: I would support the removal of the NID procedure as this often results in confusion to members of the public and would simplify the procedures.
West Lothian Council: This proposal is supported as it will simplify the planning process for the community and customers. These applications should still be advertised in the local press.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Health & Safety Executive: We support the proposal to require a schedule of land ownership in each local development plan and of the intention to withdraw the "Notice of intention to develop" procedure so that all local authority interest cases become subject to planning applications.
Sportscotland: We welcome the proposal to withdraw the NID procedure and require local authorities to provide a statement justifying their decisions in light of objections or development departures. Issues have arisen in respect of council development on council owned open space which highlight the need for a more transparent process. We would go further and suggest that all development proposals in which the local authority has a financial or development interest and are not indisputably in conformity with the development plan should be supported by a planning statement justifying the council's decision. This would, for example, help to address many of the concerns raised by PPP related applications for new schools on existing school playing fields or other areas of open space. In this regard, we welcome the proposals for greater use of hearings for dealing with controversial applications and would suggest that this would be particularly appropriate for applications in which the councils have an interest.
Development Industry
Bett Homes: The White Paper proposes to include a schedule of land ownership that would highlight Council owned land in development plans. Bett Homes would support this proposal.
Homes for Scotland: As the White Paper acknowledges local authorities are also major developers, either directly or through arms length companies such as EDI in Edinburgh. While the White Paper goes some way to addressing this issue, we are not persuaded that it goes far enough and will provide the level playing field and transparency sought by private developers.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): A schedule of land in a local authority's ownership to which development proposals in the local development plan relate will ensure greater transparency and confidence in the whole process of site identification and selection.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: Development proposals promoted by Waterfront Edinburgh Limited are required to be referred to Scottish Ministers because of the City Council interest in the Company. It is not clear in the White Paper whether a schedule of land ownership is required to accompany such a referral.
Other Businesses
Scottish Rural Property & Business Association: We are concerned about the proposals for a schedule of land ownership. There is no reason why individual landowners should be identified in such a schedule. If the purpose of the schedule is to identify local authority owned land then it should simply indicate such land, with the rest being generically identified as non-local authority owned land. This would resolve difficulties of keeping such a schedule up to date, given that there may be numerous land transfers within a 5 year development plan cycle. We otherwise support the proposals for development of local authority owned land.
Professional Organisations
The Faculty of Advocates: We believe that the planning system has been brought into disrepute on several occasions when this has been the case. However the proposals stop short of taking all such cases outwith the hands of the council. We do not see how the schedule of land ownership and development management proposals proposed can resolve suspicions that the planning authority has acted with an ulterior motive. There is all the more reason for scrutiny by means of a public inquiry in such cases, whereby parties actually have the right to ask important questions before a reporter in public.
The Law Society of Scotland: Regarding the proposals in respect of the development proposals in which the local authority has an interest, the Society welcomes the White Paper's proposal that there should be a withdrawal of the Notices of Intention to Develop procedure, requiring all local authority interest cases to be the subject of planning applications and agrees that this should lead to a more transparent process.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Turley Associates: Greater transparency will be provided by development plans providing a schedule of land ownership and by withdrawal of the NID procedure. These proposals are therefore supported.
Community Councils
Ardross Community Council: We welcome the introduction of the obligation for planning authorities to inform individuals who have made representations of their decisions. We would ask for this to be extended to community councils. This would also help in effective monitoring.
Broughty Ferry Community Council: A more wide-ranging definition of local authority interest needs to be made. Interest can be direct such as when the authority owns the land but other more indirect interests include consents to other parties which: enhance the value of LA land; improve income from local taxes or where the development is in accord with an unadopted Plan (the Planning Authority should not be able to pre-empt the recommendations of the independent Reporter. A RPNP (or preferably TRPA) could test the planning merits of such applications.
Currie Community Council: Where the Local Authority has an interest, we note that applications will be handled by the Scottish Executive. Our experience in this respect has to date not left us confident that the process will be sufficiently transparent. More detail is required as to how this would work and what the Scottish Executive will be doing to ensure that local people and objectors are properly involved in this part of the decision-making process.
Gatehouse of Fleet Community Council: The requirement to provide a schedule of land ownership as part of a local development plan is to be welcomed. We hope this can be achieved, however, local experience dictates otherwise.
Hillhead Community Council: The local authority should not be exempt from the requirement to obtain scrutinised planning consent.
Pitlochry & Moulin Community Council: This we agree with but would add that as Consultees the Community Council should also get this same notification which at present we do NOT.
Royal Burgh of North Berwick Community Council: Much is made of fairness and balance in how the process should be implemented however; no mention is made of the unfair process currently operated when a local authority proposes development of land in its own ownership. In this case objectors do not have a level playing field as the hearing is under the jurisdiction of the Executive and only the original statements of the objectors are the basis of their case while the local authority has the preferential position of both presenting its own case and that of the objectors.
Strathblane Community Council: We would wish to see the proposed land register widened to include land held by other public bodies such as the Health Boards and Scottish Water. This will help ensure that community councils are involved in these applications.
Voluntary Organisations
Brethren Gospel Trusts: This is supported and will enhance transparent decision making.
Private Individuals
Oliver, Jean: About the planning authority selling their own land, in a private deal, to an applicant? Any potential development land owned by a public authority should be advertised on the open market. Only then can "best value" be achieved and the transaction open to scrutiny. A schedule of land ownership should be required with any planning application and, in case of dispute, the applicant should have to provide proof of ownership. The burden of proof should not be on the objector/s.
Mackenzie, Mary E: Registers of local authority owned land should include that held on the Common Good Fund, in order to ensure that a comprehensive record of council interests is maintained.
Politicians and Political Groups
Kennedy, Margaret Councillor: I welcome the proposed removal of the Notice of Intention to Develop ( NID) procedure. Where it is necessary to notify Scottish Ministers this should occur prior to consideration by local elected members otherwise the public will see that there is no true local accountability.
« Previous | Contents | Next »