« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Good Neighbour Agreements
Local Authorities
Aberdeen City Council: This proposal extends planning control from land use into more detailed land management. It raises significant concerns about how it is possible to reach satisfactory agreements, how to respond to operators' changing requirements, and the changing expectations of local communities. There is the potential for difficulties in monitoring and enforcing such agreements, in particular at a time of downsizing of local authorities.
Dundee City Council: This is a concept which is not present in the formal UK planning system. The role of the local planning authority in this process of community involvement is not clearly defined. For reference to be made to Good Neighbour Agreements in planning conditions or Section 75 agreements their status as material planning considerations requires clarification as would the status of signatories.
East Dunbartonshire Council: This is welcomed and it should be noted that this could have been a valuable tool for the Asda development. It has the additional benefit of removing the Council from requirement to play a role in non planning matters or issues which could more easily have been resolved directly between concerned parties. This approach could be piloted for the Councils PPP for Schools development.
Inverclyde Council: This seems like a good idea in principle, but what happens if there is a dispute? In the long run, this could be extremely expensive for a local authority to monitor and enforce.
Moray Council: Support in principle. Increase the public involvement in a scheme and monitoring of development. It has the potential to result in better relationships between developers and local communities, however the reverse is also possible. This proposed scheme could result in an increase in enforcement complaints impacting on planning officer time and resources. The agreements could also take account of issues that are not necessarily dealt with by conditions. Would a developer/applicants failure to sign up to or agree terms for a good neighbour agreement warrant a refusal of planning permission?
North Lanarkshire Council: These could have some merit. However, consideration needs to be given to how they could be made effective - will they give rise to an expectation that planning authorities enforce such agreements, even if they are not party to them. It is recommended that the role of the planning authority should be considered.
Renfrewshire Council: Support in principle. This is a new concept and would appear to address the many problems that arise with change of use of land or new development where certain matters that give concern to local residents are currently outwith the scope of planning. It would appear that in granting a planning permission a planning authority may place a condition on the approval such that a developer is required to enter into such a good neighbour agreement with the local community. Although lacking detail the proposals for such agreements appear to be potentially very beneficial, however, would the planning authority require to use its enforcement powers if developer defaults - again a resource issue.
South Lanarkshire Council: With regard to 'Good Neighbour Agreements' this appears to be similar in nature to community liaison groups that are set up in relation to larger scale mineral schemes which this Council requires of developers. Therefore, there are no objections in principle to rolling this model out to other large scale developments. However, further details are required in relation to the agreements in terms of their scope, administrative arrangements and resource implications for Councils.
West Lothian Council: This proposal is supported in principle, although there may be significant issues of enforceability.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: This represents a positive step in engaging local communities in the long term planning and operation of developments in their area. Further consideration of implementation issues would be a useful early exercise.
Other Public Bodies
Central Scotland Forest Trust:CSFT supports the piloting of Good Neighbour Agreements and in particular the ability for communities to ensure new development is carried out to agreed environmental standards. This should enable communities to ensure 'green' works linked to built development are properly carried out.
Development Industry
EDI Group Ltd: The idea that Good Neighbour Agreements are necessary is not supported given the extent to which developments are already regulated.
Homes for Scotland: We accept that for particular developments, such as mineral working or opencast coal extraction, it will be good practice to introduce such agreements in order to support the Executive's policy commitment to environmental justice and to reassure local communities affected by long-term workings. Homes for Scotland members are committed to achieving the highest standards of project management and already apply high standards during housing construction which meet fully the requirements of the particular local authority. Given the present satisfactory arrangements, Homes for Scotland therefore seeks the Minister's assurance that proposals for good neighbour agreements will not be applied to housing developments.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): The primary thinking behind this proposal would appear to be aimed at cutting down on the workload of local authority enforcement officers, while also empowering local residents in an enforcement capacity. It is hard to imagine too many instances where developers are prepared to enter into such agreements, especially on large and complex sites e.g. landfill and mineral extraction works and the possibility of such an agreement forming part of a planning consent (either via condition or Section 75 agreement) is considered to be an inappropriate and disproportionate way of monitoring a land use.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: The White Paper gives no detailed guidance on the mechanisms by which Good Neighbour Agreements ( GNAs) might be constituted. Introducing a system of mandatory GNAs will inevitably create a mechanism with the potential to be (ab)used by disaffected third parties to prevent, or at the very least substantially delay, development from proceeding, regardless of the planning merits of the proposals. Introducing a system of mandatory GNAs is likely to create a mechanism whereby interest groups opposed to a development for whatever reason can block that development. The responsibility for balancing competing interests must remain with the planning authority. GNAs must not be seen as an opportunity to pass responsibility for adjudging the suitability of development proposals to third parties.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: The proposal to promote good neighbour agreements is accepted but it also needs measures for managing and monitoring such agreements and in the event of an impasse who would arbitrate.
Other Businesses
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: Aggregate Industries believes that active Community Engagement is an integral component of business management but that GNAs are not an appropriate tool to discharge community responsibilities. The responsibility for balancing competing interests must remain with the planning authority. Aggregate Industries have for some time recognised that active Community Engagement is an essential part of our continuing operations. In light of this we introduced a "Community Policy" in September 2004 with the underlying aim of being a "good neighbour" through "planned engagement with our stakeholders". We believe this engagement process should not be prescriptive but dynamic. Good Neighbour Agreements ( GNAs) should be one of many options available to site operators and the local community but we do feel that further consideration be given to the legal basis on their implementation. We do not believe that a GNA should be used as a means of ensuring regulatory consents are complied with. There is already a robust and effective legislative framework in place which deals with this and local residents should be confident that operators conduct their business in full legal compliance. In addition consideration needs to be given to existing Guidance and Policy to ensure that GNAs are complimentary to them. In our experience of operating sites throughout the United Kingdom is that there is not one standard model which can be applied across the business. Our strategy therefore allows flexibility to meet the needs and aspirations of the communities where we operate. In addition there is a distinct difference to "community engagement" at the planning application stage as opposed to engagement as part of ongoing operations. In terms of the details, The White Paper states that GNAs would be required in "appropriate circumstances" and for "significant developments" and where the planning authority consider it would be "beneficial". Detailed guidance on the circumstances in which a GNA is envisaged will be essential. Equally, the White Paper gives no detailed guidance on the mechanisms by which GNAs might be constituted, and contains only a broad reference to the possible use of conditions or legal agreements. The Section concludes with a commitment to work up proposals for a system allowing for GNAs "in consultation with all relevant interests", Some of questions we have considered include the following. What are the "appropriate circumstances" in which it is envisaged that there will be a requirement for a GNA? What is a "significant development"? Would it be restricted to potentially polluting industrial development (as has been the practice in the USA where GNAs evolved) or would it apply to all forms of major development including housing, business and retail? What would be the parameters within which a planning authority could deem a GNA "beneficial"? Would it apply to every application where an EIA was required? What it is the legal status of a GNA and under what authority would they act? We envisage that GNAs have no legal status but would reflect the needs and desires of all stakeholders. Who would be the parties to a GNA? How would it be ensured that the community "representative" was truly representative of the majority view of that community? Who would be responsible for monitoring/enforcement of the GNA? How would this sit with the responsibilities of the planning authority and other statutory bodies for enforcement of relevant regulations? What exactly is meant by the GNA guaranteeing local people "a role in monitoring the way the development is carried out"? We firmly believe that the monitoring of planning conditions and regulatory consents should be the responsibility of the appropriate regulatory authorities. And most importantly of all, in a situation where a developer is required to enter into a GNA as a condition of development proceeding, what happens if, through no fault of his own, agreement cannot be reached, for example because the community representative refuses to enter into negotiations or imposes unreasonable demands? We have serious concerns that GNAs could be used to frustrate development if legislation requires them to be incorporated into planning permissions or legal agreements.
ATH Resources: A TH Resources believe that the introduction of GNAs would be an unnecessary, unwelcome and potentially expensive complexity to the already bureaucratic planning process, making further demands on both the developer and the planning authority. The minerals industry in general and A TH Resources, already strive to be good neighbours. This is achieved through many means; respect of S75 Agreements and Planning Conditions; direct community involvement and through these of Minerals Trust Funds; environmental monitoring and management systems and direct communication with the community through involvement with community liaison committees. As such ATH Resources believe that GNAs are an unnecessary addition to an already congested and lengthy administrative process. The introduction of community GNAs would be a problematic addition to development control. How will GNAs be enforced? Many of the aspects which it is proposed GNAs will cover are already successfully managed by S75 Agreements, The Planning Authority is the most appropriate body to set planning conditions, particularly with regard to the environmental standards which an operator is expected to attain. The empowerment of the community to set such environmental standards over and above those set within planning conditions would be problematical. A TH Resources is concerned that the introduction of GNAs will be problematical, ineffective and will be a further drain on limited resources at the local authority level and will be a further financial and administrative drain on the operator.
British Aggregates Association: We are in favour of voluntary good neighbour agreements and our industry does practice this. We are against statutory Good Neighbour Agreements that are linked either to the conditions of planning or to a section 75 Agreement.
Confederation of UK Coal Producers: The White Paper commits to the introduction of Good Neighbour Agreements but says very little else about them, their precise purposes, legal standing, etc. It would appear that many of the matters which GNAs might cover are already covered, at least for the opencast coal industry, by Section 75 agreements requiring liaison committees, trust
payments, traffic management and routing, commitments to local employment, provision of regular environmental monitoring, independent compliance monitoring, etc. Equally, it is not at all clear what is meant by "local people" or " a body that is representative of the local community. Great care should be taken to ensure that the party representing the community is genuinely representative and not restricted to vociferous minority groups opposing the development. There is an implication that enforcement of conditions is the issue. If so, then the answer is to ensure that the planning authority is resourced adequately. CoalPro considers that the GNA proposals have not been properly thought through and should not be introduced merely as a sop to NGOs that seek to oppose development as a matter of course
Crown Castle UKLTD: we have strong reservations on this proposal as it is unclear how this would work in practice. This suggests a secondary level of control over a development possibly trying to secure objectives which reasonably fall outside the scope of planning or duplication of other forms of control. This may lead to a situation where public expectations far exceed commercial practicalities leading to intolerable local relationships. We are unclear what mechanism would exist if there were disputes about good neighbour agreements and whether this could affect the actual lawfulness of a development. We consider that this could lead a significant increase in legal dispute and in itself, if not properly managed, possibly reduce confidence in the planning system. As an alternative, where the local community have particular issues with a development or developer we would advocate guidance on greater mediation and discussion between a developer and community in an attempt to resolve differences.
Lafarge Cement UK ( LCUK): The proposal to introduce "Good Neighbour Agreements" must be given the most serious consideration as this, potentially, could have a major negative impact. If the intention is to empower the local community then more guidance on existing best practice would be a more sensible and practical option rather than a proscriptive legal mechanism. The potential to cause unnecessary overlaps between local authorities, statutory enforcement agencies such as SEPA and local communities must be avoided.
Quarry Products Association (Scotland): The proposal to introduce Good Neighbour Agreements must be given the most serious consideration as this potentially, could have a major negative impact. If the intention is to empower the local community then more guidance on existing best practice would be a more sensible and practical option rather than a proscriptive legal mechanism. The potential to cause unnecessary overlaps between local authorities, statutory enforcement agencies such as SEPA and local communities must be avoided. The Association is willing to continue its dialogue with the Scottish Executive particularly with respect to detailed proposals which may be introduced and trusts that this offer will be of assistance.
Tarmac Ltd: It is paramount that monitoring of planning compliance continues to be a regulatory role of a planning authority and not lead by local groups who may have narrow agendas over developments. The white paper also envisages 'good neighbour agreements' to monitor developments and it appears that this has been written with mineral developments in mind. Lastly where there has been significant opposition to a planning decision it can be difficult to make such liaison work effectively.
The Scottish Coal Company Limited ( SCCL): Much of what is proposed in this section is often covered by both planning conditions and obligations contained in planning agreements. It appears that there is a perceived lack of trust driven and promoted by certain NGO's who have their own anti-opencast agenda to promote. The form of the Good Neighbour Agreements proposed in the Scottish Executive and SEPA funded research undertaken by Friends of the Earth Scotland in "Love thy Neighbour" is a subversion of the planning enforcement system that will put the power of enforcement into the hands of local communities, many of whom are not impartial, and will not have the expertise or the financial resources to properly undertake this role. Indeed if this proposal is introduced there appears to be no reason to pursue the imposition of monitoring and enforcement costs. As indicated in comments on the enforcement section of the White Paper, Scottish Coal takes its responsibilities as a good neighbour very seriously and already demonstrates compliance with planning conditions and voluntarily signs up to planning agreements that seek to regulate many aspects of our business in local communities.
WBB Minerals: These simply cannot become statutory through Section 75 agreements nor should they become planning conditions. Firstly a community cannot be forced to enter in to an agreement with a developer. How then does the developer meet what will be his or her statutory requirement? LPAs have been known to obstruct proper local liaison.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Collar, Neil: It is difficult to see what this proposal has to do with the planning system. Members of the public can and do already report alleged breaches to the planning authority for potential enforcement action. Conditions imposed on mineral and other developments provide for community liaison groups to be set up to keep the public informed. What is the planning justification for giving members of the public greater involvement through good neighbour agreements? There may be merit in such agreements, but unless there is a clear planning justification, the agreements should not be part of the planning system and not add to the burden already carried by planning authorities.
Humberts Leisure Consulting:HLL welcomes the aim of Good Neighbour Agreements but questions the issue of cost of implementation and organisational implications.
Maclay, Murray & Spens: Whilst there is a clear commitment to introducing GNAs, there is no detail about the circumstances in which they may be required. Equally, the White Paper gives no detailed guidance on the mechanisms by which GNAs might be constituted, and contains only a broad reference to the possible use of conditions or legal agreements. Consequently, the White Paper gives rise to many questions in regard to GNAs
- What are the "appropriate circumstances" in which it is envisaged that there will be a requirement for a GNA?
- What is a "significant development"? Would it be restricted to potentially polluting industrial development (as has been the practice in the USA where GNAs evolved) or would it apply to all forms of major development including housing, business and retail?
- What would be the parameters within which a planning authority could deem a GNA "beneficial"? Would it apply to every application where an EIA was required?
- Who would be the parties to a GNA? How would it be ensured that the community "representative" was truly representative of the majority view of that community?
- Who would be responsible for monitoring/enforcement of the GNA? How would this sit with the responsibilities of the planning authority and other statutory bodies for enforcement of relevant regulations?
- What exactly is meant by the GNA guaranteeing local people "a role in monitoring the way the development is carried out"? What other aspects of the development, beyond those examples specified in the Section ( i.e. hours of operation, vehicle movements, environmental performance) would be subject to community monitoring? What level of expertise could be expected/should be demanded of the local community in carrying out that monitoring role?
- And most importantly of all, in a situation where a developer is required to enter into a GNA as a condition of development proceeding, what happens if, through no fault of his own, agreement cannot be reached, for example because the community representative refuses to enter into negotiations or imposes unreasonable demands?
It will be essential for these, and the very many other questions which will no doubt arise during the consultation process, to be fully and satisfactorily addressed before GNAs are introduced. In this context we would also refer you to the study on GNAs by Prof Jeremy Rowan-Robinson. In conclusion, GNAs must have due regard to the views, requirements and legitimate expectations of all relevant stakeholders. GNAs are likely to create a mechanism whereby interest groups opposed to a development can block that development. GNAs should therefore be introduced on the basis of a "Best Practice" mechanism. The responsibility for balancing competing interests must remain with the planning authority. GNAs must not be seen as an opportunity to pass responsibility for adjudging the suitability of development proposals to third parties or as a substitute for proper legislative control
Warren Consultants: In principle this looks like a very good idea, but we would warn against a requirement for legal agreements with ephemeral bodies such as local residents associations. In our experience such bodies can come and go depending upon whether there are important local issues which generate an interest in the maintenance of a residents group. Very often these groups are not legally established and therefore it would not be feasible to make them party to a Section 75 Agreement. Also, they may well not have the willingness or the legal expertise or even the means to pay for a solicitor, etc. A community council would be acceptable because this is a body established under statute but it still may be the case that it is not actually representative of local views.
Community Councils
Dunblane Community Council: We strongly support the proposal for Good Neighbour Agreements which will provide a platform for much improved Community involvement and would ask that the Executive provides the Planning Authority with adequate resources to implement such a mechanism
Greengairs Community Council and Greengairs Environmental Forum: We have liaison groups with two of the major developers in our area, one works the other doesn't. The one that works is accessible, accountable and reacts to community concerns, the other one is during the working day, restricts who can attend, does not publish joint minutes and hasn't the authority to react to concerns. If this is going to be an effective part of the process of public participation there will need to be a standard accountable procedure put together.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: Reforms contained within the white paper intended to promote good development management practices are a welcome advance. The community council in particular supports proposals to introduce Good Neighbour Agreements, however further clarification is necessary with regards to monitoring and enforcement procedures.
Voluntary Organisations
Quarry Traffic Monitoring Group: We welcome the proposals contained within this section. However, if such agreements are to work, they must form part of the planning conditions of the consent granted to the applicant. The Code of Practice currently operated by the quarry operator as it affects this community has no legal standing and thus is impossible to enforce
Private Individuals
Anonymous: Good Neighbour agreements and firming up of enforcements of conditions while a development is being carried out are also to be welcomed. Local Authorities ought to have the right to halt a development immediately if conditions are not being met.
Dalgleish, Karen: On the matter of Good Neighbour Agreements, planning conditions cannot control third parties, therefore it may be impossible to realise such a liaison with local representative bodies.
Lauder, Alistair J: The Paper envisages the possibility of planning authorities requiring parties to enter into Good Neighbour Agreements, perhaps with local residents. There must be a concern that these agreements could become a standard condition in planning decisions. A developer facing the prospect of having its development of a site regulated by local residents, some or all of whom may have been opposed to the development in the first place may well decide to invest outside Scotland. There are laws in force just now that regulate these matters and if there are gaps in the existing system surely it would be better for the matters to be regulated either by planning conditions or such an agreement only being able to be entered into between the local planning authority and the developer, thus maintaining the integrity of the planning system.
Piggins, J M Dr: The proposal for Good Neighbour Agreements is good in principle, but lacks an obvious means of enforcement. There is a danger that would-be developers will offer voluntary restrictions in order to obtain planning permission, but ignore them later. Annoyingly, there have been examples under the present system of developers coming back some time later to argue that because of some alleged change in circumstances, planning conditions -without which the application might have been refused entirely -are now unreasonable. I would like to see it made clear that a Good Neighbour Agreement, once made, is legally enforceable, perhaps by a Stop Notice similar to that described on page 43. Without this, such Agreements may scarcely be worth the paper they are written on.
« Previous | Contents | Next »