Lack of democracy in planning procedure

[Gemini]

What a sham the consultation was then?



Sicker wrote>>It's only my thoughts but I feel that the politicians plead with you to go and vote for them then, once nicely settled in their cosy (and lucrative - let's go watch TV) enviroment they convieniently ignore the people who put them there in favour of big bussiness. What right do they have to overrule the council and the local community?. It's getting more like Brussels every day. <<

John

How right he is

Think this has made up my mind who not to vote for this time and next time round.

[Gemini]

Reply from Kenny MacAsgill re lack of democracy in planning

Many thanks for your note. I am unaware of any decision having been taken by the Parliament in this regard. So far it is with the Executive. There has been press speculation that centralisation of powers etc will be taken but it has neither been published nor reached the Parliament. The Parliament is a different entity and whilst the Lib Lab Executive may seek to abuse their majority that cannot be taken for granted and public debate and scrutiny will be necessary.
My own view is that there needs to be a balance between the right to object and the need to deliver major infrastructure projects not simply transport schemes but affordable housing developments. Want is needed sis a continental model that allows debate and discussion from organisation s and locals but fundamentally once decision has been reached allows progress to be made.
The current system is bureaucratic, a been feats for lawyers an incomprehensible to the ordinary person. That must change. I await publication but will seek to balance rights with progress being made in projects.
Kenny MacAskill

[Bob Jefferson]

Copy of letter from Lawrence Marshall to the Herald:

Dear Sir,

In all matters, big or small, concerning planning I believe that ultimately decisions should be made by accountable politicians rather than unaccountable Inquiry Reporters.

The leaked proposals prompting your editorial ("Holyrood power grab", 4 May 2005) give me, therefore, no great cause for concern.

National politicians should decide the need for national strategic projects and local politicians should then weigh up the question of their location and physical impact.

As someone who has long championed an increasing role for trains and trams in our country, I recognise that government ministers can approve road as well as rail schemes, not to mention nuclear power stations as well as wind farms. But that's not the point. The point is that we have to win the argument with ministers about which schemes are the right ones in the first place - not seek to then usurp these decisions if we don't like them through an Inquiry process which is ultimately unaccountable.

This country lags behind Europe in domestic rail development by at least 20 years. We're now behind even Asia and North America. The overall vision is what counts most in these countries and it shows - close to the UK, go visit France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal. The public good on display for all to see.

Accountability with respect to planning matters of more local import demands likewise that final decisions be made by local councillors - where need is never a material planning consideration anyway.

There are many who are supportive of a third party right of appeal, giving objectors the same rights as developers. I too wish to "level the playing field" but I fundamentally do not wish thereby to see all important local planning decisions made by Inquiry Reporters. Rather the best way to achieve parity is to abolish the right of appeal altogether. Only on grounds of maladministration would a review be granted.

All too often both developers and objectors at present see local councils as an irksome staging post on the way to appeal - where the real decision-making power is seen to lie and where this power resides in the hands of a single Reporter whose decisions are virtually unchallengeable, are certainly unaccountable and are often inconsistent. A "jury" of local councillors aware of local issues and mindful of proper procedure must surely always be preferable in a democracy to the "Diplock court" of an Inquiry.

The need for national projects decided nationally - it happens already anyway. It's up to us to persuade ministers to make the right decisions. Moreover, the Scottish Executive can currently "call-in" any planning decision it deems of strategic significance.

Local councils seen to be the final arbiters of local planning decisions. Accountability is the key - abandon decision-making by Inquiry Reporters and both the infrastructure of the nation and the authority of local councils should gain as a result.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Lawrence Marshall
Vice-Convener
Planning Committee
The City of Edinburgh Council

[Gemini]

Bob, are your Lawrence / Maureen's press officer

[Bob Jefferson]

I am not. A copy of Lawrence's letter was sent by him to many of his constituents via his extensive email distribution list, so it was already in the public domain. I imagine most local people would be interested to know his views on this matter.

Maureen produces a monthly report to the Community Council, from which I often copy and paste sections that have relevance to on-going threads.

[Porty]

I imagine most local people would be interested to know his views on this matter

Your imagination is wild. How did the talk go?

[Bob Jefferson]

I imagine that most people were fascinated by it.

[Gemini]

From EN Letters



Planning appeals no obstacle to growth

YOUR article on third party rights of appeal (TPRA) in planning (‘Tesco joins third-party planning row’ July 25) gave a biased and misleading view of the potential impacts of TPRA and broadcast the misinformation that is being pushed by the development industry in the absence of any supporting evidence.

I have extensively researched the issue of TPRA in Ireland and other countries. TPRA has not hindered economic growth in the Republic, and indeed, far more houses are now developed than in Scotland. Thus it is difficult to understand the claim made by Homes for Scotland that TPRA would result in fewer houses being built, since its real impact would be to ensure any house building conforms more closely with democratically agreed planning policy.

The logical implication of their claim is that the high level of current developments is being undertaken contrary to such planning policy.

It is also difficult to take at face value the concerns for good planning made by Tesco, whose out of town development over the past decades has reeked havoc on the viability of many town centres. The big businesses that reject TPRA often advocate enhanced consultation, yet it is the very fact that developers tend to ignore such efforts that there is now a need for TPRA.

Consultation, if undertaken with the knowledge that a community can appeal a decision, would help ensure developers propose better quality developments and that local authorities more closely conform to planning policy.

Finally, opponents to TPRA point to the fact that Westminster has rejected TPRA, yet I fail to see the relevance of the argument. Scotland’s planning system is independent of England and with its admirable greater emphasis on environmental justice, it is more suited to leading the way in democratising planning.

Geraint Ellis, senior lecturer, School of Environmental Planning, Queen’s University, Belfast

[Gemini]

So much for democracy for people and communities! well seen who holds the power. I for one am disgusted, especially when 86% of people and communities voted for TPRA


http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=718202005

[Gemini]

EN - today

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... =739862005

[dccairns]

Friends of the Earth Scotland is having a seminar on SAT 24 SEPTEMBER on the planning white paper, from 11 am - 3 pm. John Stewart, Chair of Portobello Amenities Society, will be speaking at it from the point of view of how the changes might affect the community.

The seminar will take place at LAMB'S HOUSE, BURGESS STREET, LEITH. There is no cost and lunch will be provided.

If you would like to attend, please contact FoES direct on 0131 554 9977.