Lack of democracy in planning procedure

[administrator]

[administrator]

Originally posted by Carla on 25 Jan 04:

I think we owe a debt of opening our eyes to the people who campaigned against the Bath St monstrous flats building - I am very sorry to see it going up and so high and wide - but no longer will we take it for granted that the Scottish Executive will see our needs, and leave it up to our local Council to make our case for us - we need to get out and campaign ourselves - numbers mean a lot -
I also wanted to a) bring this topic back to page 1!
b) ask if people feel we should have a campaign to get more rights for communities re planning applications e.g. if our Councillor comes out against a Planning Application quite rightly if the vast majority of their constituency is opposed to it - they should be allowed to vote ; also, why have developers/planning applicants the right to appeal against a Planning Committee decision but the community hasn't - if the superstore goes through that's it!
also, once it goes to S Exec - all we get is a site visit, at which we are not allowed to speak unless asked a question, or some such nonsense, and there is no guarantee of a public enquiry if the application has caused a lot of disquiet amongst residents and traders.....also its perfectly legal for developers to offer the council money to pay for road adjustments, or even park and sports areas, in lieu of planning permission - its called net planning gain - some might call it something else!

Please add your thoughts here....and maybe we can start a campaign around this - there's a lot of anger that the S Exec approved these flats....

[administrator]

Originally posted by Carol on 27 Jan 04

Where to start ......

Put simply, a bunch of people were voted in and then they appointed another bunch of people to make the decisions for them.

The Scottish Ministers appointed the Inquiry Reporters to act on their behalf. Inquiry Reporters are not voted in by the people.

I also wonder why they are called Inquiry Reporters because they don't report to anyone - their decision is final. It is highly strange that unelected civil servants (Inquiry Reporters) have the final say on major planning matters. They should report their findings back to the Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Ministers should have the final say. I think that's the way most people think it works.

Why appoint Inquiry Reporters atall when there is already an established, up-and-running Planning Department to consult? Why does no mean no, everywhere else except when it comes from the Planning People?

Why didn't the Inquiry Reporter(who came here)pay more attention to Planners, Community Groups and Local Residents?

I was interested to read about Net Planning Gain which supports my theory that the Inquiry Reporters are accountants or economists.

The present appeal system seems only to accommodate the bully, sorry Property Developer who won't take No for an answer.

People should be aware of the following;

The name Inquiry Reporter needs be changed to Inquiry Militia.
Property Developers are gift bearing bullies and the Scottish Ministers are to blame because this is an example of delegation gone mad and the fact that they haven't even noticed and sorted it out is even worse.

[administrator]

Originally posted by Carla on 28 Jan 04

thanks for that very clear summary from obviously hard learned lessons re lack of democracy in planning - you raise some really important points - which I will pass on to Campaign Against The Superstore and MSPs that we are pressing, so far with no result, to take action on the horrific difficulties communities and ordinary people have in standing up to private developers and big business interests....if anyone else has anything to add please do (or post a private message) - I've heard from people in other areas battling the same - and people all over the country are battling these superstore developers, but also flat, incinerator, office block and road developers - you are right it is bullying - backed by big money - and we have to get as many people to understand what is happening and stand up to this - and put pressure on MSPs to change this ....post on here if you agree...C

[administrator]

Originally posted by Carla on 01 Feb 04

I have recently emailed Susan Deacon MSP for the second time (no reply first time) asking if she has heard any more about the improvements she was hoping for - see Angigael's spot on page 6 or 7 of this thread - to planning procedures so that ordinary people affected by developments get a say in appeals etc.

Did you ever get any more info Angigael??

When you start to talk about Planning, people's eyes glaze over, until it affects them or their friends - that the procedures are so in favour of developers, particularly those with megabucks to pay on reports, QCs, Agents etc etc when we are just campaigning in our spare time, with no money.

My feeling is: Cllrs should be able to represent their community's views and vote to represent us - sure this would be biased but biased in favour of the people who matter who have to live with monster developments - I would not include in this anything anti equal opps e.g. a women's refuge - but something like a superstore, incinerator, or luxury monster block of flats which is not wanted in a community _ I think our cllr should be able to represent us and vote for us
- communities should have the right of appeal to the Scottish Exec and to be heard
- communities should be fully consulted in the widest possible way in any new development plan for an area and where it is a largish development - not just token involvement of one rep or a C Council - but with full consultation by a neutral party (not arranged by the developer but costs to be met by them )

I could go on - do post here if you feel similarly - and has anyone heard any more about improved planning procedures because as far as I can see they are exactly as they were in April, C!

[administrator]

Originally posted by Carol on 01 Feb 04

Hello Carla

I nearly exploded last summer when I discovered that once the Inquiry Reporter has passed a building on appeal, the developer is free to go back to the planning department and make more changes, alterations and omissions to the agreed plans.

It makes nonsense of the decision letter witten by the Inquiry Reporter if the developer doesn't have to stick to the original plan.

I don't know what sense that makes of the Superstore proposal either.

For me, this is the most upsetting aspect of the appeal system.

[Cynthia]

Thanks Carol - and to Bob for making this a thread which it deserves - I wonder if Angigael is still around and reading this ?? I didn't know that about the Developers then being able to go back to the Planning Dept, once approved by S Exec on appeal, but ofcourse that is the logical extension of an illogical system - lots of appeal rights for developers but none for communities, or neighbours affected by their profit-making developments, which doubtless they don't have to look at every day! hope we can keep this topic going and also maybe start a campaign on it - CATS have discussed this, altho our priority is stopping the superstore at all levels - but we are aware of communities with similar struggles in other areas - the Skye Bridge anti-toll campaigners, who've had the most expensive road toll in the world per sq mtr of road forced on them but they are campaigning to get rid of it; an anti-superstore campaign in Dunbar and one in Merchiston, and the one in Gorgie Dalry which was successful after a huge battle but the developers keep coming back with new applications....folks let us know if you know of other campaigns - in Scotland or UK - these companies have roots everywhere! good luck to us all and keep making a lot of noise! they may have £ but we have nos!C

[scossie5]

Just a small point about inquiry reporters. The couple of PLIs I have been involved with in my work have seen the reporters' recommendation passed via the appropriate Minister for his/her approval (or not). These have involved heritage issues rather than straightforward planning, however, so it may be different.

[dccairns]

I think this is very pertinent to the local issues we are facing here in Portobello.

The New Economics Foundation (nef) has launched Local Works - a campaign to support a Local Communities Sustainability Bill. The Bill aims to give the power to local communities to determine their own agenda for environmental, political, social and economic sustainability. The Bill will give local authorities freedom to put in place radical sustainability strategies with support from central government if that is what their communities want but without setting artificial targets and diktats from Whitehall.

Local sustainability means policies that work towards the long-term well-being of any given area. That means promoting local economic needs - so money that is spent locally benefits local shops and services, not remote executives and shareholders. Or that the long-term environmental impacts of any planning or economic policies are central to the process of deciding whether they go ahead or not. The Bill has received all party support. chaired by nef and guided by a steering group which meets regularly to discuss developing the campaign.

Local works is first and foremost a community campaign, which relies on the support of local groups and individuals. To get involved, e-mail Molly.Conisbee@neweconomics.org

I found this information on the nef website: www.neweconomics.org which has full details on this Bill.

[Cynthia]

[scossie5]

[Cynthia]

[Cynthia]

[Carol]

Yes, I'd like to read it as well but will have to wait for it to go online.

Here at the Foot of Bath Street/Promenade .... it feels as if no-one knows we're here.

We don't get a Portobello Reporter or Herald and Post nor do we get the dark blue paper recycling bags. We don't get Ikea Catalogues when they come out nor do we get free samples of anything.

We still get mail though so are still in touch with the outside world.

[Lawrence Marshall]

... I thought that this e-mail which I sent out to folk last month might be of interest to those participating in this topical debate:

Lawrence


Dear All,
especially with the current superstore application in mind, I thought that you might be interested in this written question from Susan Deacon.
My own view is that a 3rd party right of appeal is desirable but that, to prevent almost all contentious decisions being finally made in future by Scottish Executive Reporters rather than locally elected councillors, this right must be limited to where councillors have gone against their Local and/or Structure Plan policies, gone against officer advice, where the Council itself has an interest, etc.. To balance the situation, exactly similar grounds would apply to the right of appeal by applicants - who currently have an unlimited right of appeal.

Lawrence

WRITTEN QUESTIONS 13 to19 FEBRUARY 2004

Planning

Third party right of appeal, mobile phone masts, house building/planning system

S2W-6328 Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answer to question S2W-136 by Ms Margaret Curran on 6 June 2003, when it intends to publish the consultation paper on a third party right of appeal against planning decisions.

[Carol]

[Lawrence Marshall]

[Guest]

The consultation paper referred to earlier in this thread is now available to read at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultation ... oap-00.asp

[Cynthia]

Just to spur people on to look at the consultation on TPRA Bill - I confess I haven't but will do now having read this critique - the following article appeared in Socialist Voice P5, Issue 170, Apr 9th 2004 and both issues are of concern to folk living in Porty given the problems we have had with unwanted developments - it is just one point of view but I hope it will encourage you all to look up the paper Bob put on his last post and send in your comments about what is needed:
"Plot on the landscape

Before the summer recess, two harmless-seeming bills - the Strategic Environmental Assessment Bill (SEA Bill) and Third Party Right of Appeal Bill (TPRA Bill) - are likely to be laid before parliament.
But watch out - they could be watered down to the point of meaninglessness. Or even worse: work against the very people they should be protecting.
The SEA Bill stems from an EU directive requiring the environmental impact of any development to be checked out before it's issued - or refused - the go-ahead.
But rumour has it that the Bill, once the Scottish Executive have had their way with it, will only apply to publicly-built developments.

Public money
Which means that a project like the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary would be exempt because, although it's a public building, it was built using private money through the Private Finance Initiative.
The same applies for the M74 extension, which will be mostly funded with public money but has, however, a sneaky wee percentage of PFI involvement. "If this is the case, the message is clear," says Rosie Kane.
"If you want to build a road, build it using private money."
Private money built Paterson's Landfill in Glasgow, which takes in waste as toxic as asbestos, cyanide and arsenic in the middle of a densely populated area, yet was never subject to a binding environmental assessment prior to its being granted planning permission.
Another snag is that the Bill is unlikely to be retrospective, which means no-one can take action against the as-yet-unbuilt M74, because it's already got its planning permission in the bag.
As for the TPRA Bill, it's come about after years of pushing by the environmental movement.
The planning system in Scotland is inadequate, confusing and not predicated on the needs of people.
Whether a development goes ahead is between the developer and the Scottish Executive - the ordinary person has no automatic right of appeal.
Even if someone proposes building a nuclear reactor outside your front door, your only recourse is to hire a lawyer to take up a civil action on your behalf.
This bill is very important, but the devil's in the detail.
For small groups and individuals taking on corporate giants like Monsanto, the important issues are: How much will it cost? And how drawn out will the process be?
Too lengthy or expensive and it will discourage people just as much as the present system.

Consultation
"We also need to find out who is being consulted on these bills," says Rosie.
"Community and environmental groups? Or right-wing pro-development organisations like Scottish Enterprise?
"Every single community group in Scotland should respond to this consultation.
"The Scottish Executive claim to be the listening government, so let's give them plenty to listen to!"
Consultation documents will be lodged in all libraries as soon as the Bill is tabled.
"The minute it appears, we'll alert you via the Voice and help you and/or your community organisation formulate a response."

For more info, contact: Mary.Spowart2@scottish.parliament.uk" Socialist Voice, in case you hadn't guessed, is the weekly paper of the Scottish Socialist Party - Carla

[Cynthia]

The Consultation Documents for the S Exec are called: "Rights of Appeal in the Planning System" and "Making Planning Development Plans Deliver" - they are available at www.scotland.gov.uk - click on the tab marked Consultation at the top of the page and scroll through - they are there! We have until 30th July 2004 to get in comments. They are lengthy docs - I would suggest people do as I am going to, send in comments at least twice - the first ones based on experience of the current Planning system - major problems as we know - I've put some of my comments below - the second lot I will send in after (if ever) I get around to reading these docs - I do think its important we respond to these to make it clear how badly local communities are affected at present by the lack of power over decision making. I suggest you copy your corresp to Susan Deacon and any other MSPs - Susan has asked for people to do this - Susan.Deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, Mark.Ballard.msp@scottish.parliament.uk, Colin.Fox.msp@scottish.parliament.uk. BY THE WAY READ THE LETTER THAT STARTS THE CONSULTATION DOC TO SEE WHERE TO SEND IN COMMENTS - I SPENT AGES LOOKING FOR THIS IN THE MAIN DOC!

This is a short (really!) form of what I sent in:

1) Local people should be fully involved in any major planning decision that affects their community and this should include the right to an appeal to the S Executive against any decision which affects the local community. This might make the developers more cautious about 'trying their arm' in local areas. Some have suggested we should call this Equal Rights of Appeal - I would go further and say the Community's Rights and Views should be paramount and where there is demonstrated huge public local feeling against a development it should not go ahead - the community's views should be the most important

2) Local planning decisions should plan around the needs of people in an area/the City, not around some sort of 'neutrality' approach between developers and the public, as it seems to be at the moment. Inevitably this works against communities' interests, as developers are only interested in making money, and have plenty of money & resources to make their case, including lawyers. They also offer money to pay for needed road junctions etc as a 'community planning gain' which is apparently perfectly legal, as a way of getting a planning application through. To me this is a legalised form of bribery and public services should be paid for by taxation - but those who are rich enough to invest in developing or running a superstore should pay much higher taxes. We have plenty of millionaires and billionaires in Scotland and the UK (see Sunday Times Rich List this weekend)- these are the people behind major developments in our communities.

3) Local Councillors should be able to express their views, even if they are on the Planning Committee, and still be allowed to vote on Planning Applications. In my opinion, the Rules for Councillors should be changed. In practice, by taking a 'neutral' stance, supposedly considering each planning application on its merit, but not being swayed by public opinion before the meeting (or not saying so), this promotes an atmosphere of fear of the developers and their power and money . If the Guidelines or law, if necessary, are changed to show that a Local Councillor is elected to represent their community, and its diverse interests, then this seems far more democratic and what Councillors are there for. Surely they are not elected to represent big business interests?

4) Equalities concerns - Obviously if a large force in the local community is behaving in a discriminatory way e.g. against homeless people, black / minority ethnic people, people with disabilities, women or gay people, young or older people, which is against Council policy and UK and European law, then the Councillor would have to take a principled stand and not represent these discriminatory attitudes - or be challenged on these grounds by others and using the law. Most of the time I expect local communities will actually reflect local need and national needs, and be behaving in a principled way as with CATS (Campaign Against The Superstore Portobello). e.g. the terrible shortage of affordable housing, the need for a skatepark ably expressed by young people on the demo against the Superstore in Portobello, terrible trouble with traffic, accidents, fumes, pollution, noise, lorries etc.

Things like this should be by law taken into account by the local Councillor and argued at Planning Committee, and before it, but as it stands Councillors are not allowed to be open in their views, which means we are lobbying people when we don't know their views and what we need to do to try to convince them of our views.

5) I believe Developers have been saying, that any more public involvement will hold up developments too long and that is the cause of lack of housing. This is rubbish. Friends of the Earth have done work on this to show that more public involvement could actually speed up the planning process as applications which are very unlikely to succeed, or that will cause a lot of controversy locally, don't get put in .

6) The reason there is a lack of housing is because of the huge cost of properties fuelled by people buying them to speculate and accumulate on their savings. With hardly any Council housing and only 10-20% affordable social housing on any development, the pool of affordable housing is plummeting. People are having to leave the city to live say in Fife and commute in as it is slightly cheaper there, or live in very cramped sharing conditions as people I work with have said they do- particularly low paid workers- or do two or three jobs to pay the rent or mortgate.

It is not public involvement in planning which means housing is very scarce - it is profit making out of our basic necessity - a roof over our heads.

Cut out the profit motive, by Councils compulsorily purchasing land to build public sector housing on, funded by UK Government through direct taxation of the wealthy who are still paying less tax than they were under Thatcher's Government in its early years (40% not 60% on income over the 'rich' threshold)

Carla

[helen todd]

It is heartening to see the great interest in the government's current consultation on rights of appeal in planning. Friends of the Earth Scotland has worked with many communities around Scotland who have protested against unjust planning decisions, and we have long campaigned for a third party right of appeal (TPRA) to help level the playing field. As a result, the Executive is now holding this consultation but it is by no means assured that TPRA will be included in the draft planning bill. It cannot be stressed hard enough that it is absolutely crucial for as many community voices to be heard as possible in this consultation. Opposition comes from organisations with a lot of money and political influence: CBI, Scottish Retail Consortium, Homes for Scotland, etc, who want to keep the status quo.

From now until 30th July is our window of opportunity to fight back. If we do not get greater rights of appeal to appear in the draft bill through this consultation, we will have lost the opportunity to see greater equity in planning for years to come. Westminster has already decided not to widen the right of appeal in new planning legislation for England and Wales. The Executive is making other concessions to involve the community further, but without a credible right of appeal there is no need for developers to pay more than lip service to consultation processses which profess to be about listening to the community's wishes. The principle of equity in planning is too important to lose.

This is a very complex issue with many ramifications for the planning system, so for background information see our website on http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/nation/tpra.html - briefings and reports on TPRA are all linked there, and our consultation response will be posted as soon as possible. If you don't have time to write a proper response, please at the very least email or write to your MSP pledging your support for TPRA.

Helen Todd
Friends of the Earth Scotland

[Brian McCrow]

[bellybabe]

[sicker]

[Gemini]

[Gemini]

[helen todd]

[wangi]

[helen todd]

[Maria]

[sicker]

[Guest]

[Gemini]

With the first draft legislation soon to be released, anyone who is interested in Third Party Right of Appeal in the Planning System (at the moment only developers have this right,) this is our last opportunity to write to Malcolm Chisholm and Susan Deacon, that this current system is grossly unfair to people and communities. 1600 citizens completed the TPRA consultation document in favour of TPRA - thats approx 80%.
Dont let the Developers get their own way - all the time.
Thanks



Malcolm.Chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk;susan.Deacon.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

[Gemini]

News on TPRA - does not sound very promising

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4447329.stm

[dccairns]

See below for Friends of the Earth press release on leaked Scottish Parliament papers which suggest that they are not only going to refuse to grant a third party right of appeal to ordinary punters like us but that they are going to prevent ordinary citizens from registering objections to large scale developments like roads and nuclear power stations which can affect our health, well-being and environment so dramatically. So much for consultation and "democracy"!

FoE is urging people to write to their MSPs to protest about this. Given our local experience of the lack of fairness in the current planning system, I would hope that quite a few people do write in.

LEAKED CABINET PAPER REVEALS EXECUTIVE 'POWER GRAB'
'Draconian' new planning powers will curb public right to object

Confidential Cabinet papers, seen by Friends of the Earth, reveal Scottish
Ministers' plan to centralise power in the planning system and give
themselves unprecedented powers that would make it virtually impossible for
the public to object to developments, such as motorways and airports,
nuclear power stations and waste sites. [1]

The environment group warned today (Tuesday 3 May) that, instead of
improving the rights of communities within the planning system, the
Executive was preparing to embark upon a "naked power-grab".

News of Ministers' plans comes a month after a leaked Scottish Executive
Cabinet memorandum revealed a recommendation that ministers reject
community pleas to make Scotland's planning system fairer through the
introduction of a third party right of appeal (TPRA). [2, 3]

Commenting, Friends of the Earth Scotland's Chief Executive, Duncan McLaren,
said:

"This is nothing less than a naked power-grab by Ministers which will
centralise planning, reduce public involvement and allow the imposition of
unpopular and environmentally-damaging projects. In the hands of this
Executive that means things like the M74 motorway. In the future, who knows
... even new nuclear power stations could be driven through this proposed
system with almost no regard to public opinion. Virtually all that would
remain for the public to influence would be what colour to paint them!

"Once again it seems this Executive has responded to self-interested
lobbying from business interests by putting economic growth before justice
and the environment. These misguided proposals amount to a developer's
charter, with no balancing rights of appeal for affected communities, and no
scope for opponents to challenge the need for major developments, regardless
of their environmental or social impacts. Neither communities, nor local
authorities, nor Reporters, nor even Parliament will decide whether we
really need new power stations, major roads, or waste incinerators - those
decisions will be taken by the Cabinet.

"Should these draconian and arrogant proposals ever come before Parliament,
MSPs of all parties should stand up for social and environmental justice and
throw them out."


[1] RESTRICTED Scottish Cabinet Paper entitled 'Modernising the Scottish
Planning System: A new hierarchy of planning'.

The proposals include:

• A revised National Planning Framework (NPF) with Ministerial powers to
set out priorities, but WITHOUT formal public consultation or examination by
planning inquiry: "The next revision of the NPF ... should be a more
directive document, in which we, as Ministers, would: set out national
policy and sector priorities ... identify projects of national strategic
significance".

• National priorities set by Cabinet, subject only to Parliamentary
scrutiny (NOT parliamentary approval): "the National Planning Framework
would gain its legitimacy from approval by the Cabinet and scrutiny in
Parliament ... there would not be a role for a lengthy exhaustive formal
public consultation, nor for a planning inquiry".

• Priorities in the NPF then MANDATED into local plans, with LIMITS on the
scope for any challenge on grounds of need (inquiries only able to consider
issues such as location and mitigation of environmental impacts): "The
inclusion of a project in the NPF ... will limit the scope for it to be
challenged on grounds of need ... limiting the issues [considered by an
inquiry] to those such as location, and detailed consideration of associated
environmental effects".

• Prescriptive guidance on plan preparation: "a more proactive approach to
development plans with the Executive setting out the issues it expects to
see addressed in these plans".

• CURTAILED opportunities for participation in plan development (FEWER
tiers, LESS rounds of consultation): "remove the requirement for two tiers
of development plans in all but the four City Regions ... [and in drafting,]
only one 'proposed plan' to replace the current two stages of draft and
finalised plans".

[2] On 15 April 2005 a leaked Scottish Executive Cabinet memorandum revealed
a recommendation that ministers give in to business interests and reject
community pleas to make Scotland's planning system fairer through the
introduction of a third party right of appeal (TPRA).

Despite the leaked memo explaining that ministers "have a once in a
generation opportunity to effect radical change of the planning system in
Scotland", it concludes "that it would be unwise to pursue a third party
right of appeal".

Full details: http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/press/pr20050406.html

[3] Along with communities across the country, Friends of the Earth Scotland
has been calling for the introduction of a LIMITED Third Party Right of
Appeal for applications falling within the following criteria:

1. where the planning decisions is a departure from the development plan;
2. where the local authority has a direct interest in the planning
application;
3. where the application is a 'major development', defined as those which
fall under either Schedule 1 or 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment
regulations;
4. where the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission
to the council.

A full briefing is available:

http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/nation/TPRA_briefing.pdf

or: http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/nation/tpra.html