Petition · PE01518 · Session 4
Meaningful Public Consultation within the Scottish Planning System
Signatures
1
Comments
4
Considered
3 meetings
What it asks
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clearly define, for the sake of good order within the planning system, the criterion which allows developers to ignore or avoid the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, with particular regard to Major Development applications.
What the petitioner did first
A letter from The Minister for Local Government and Planning stated that the situation highlighted “is not ideal” but added “we have no plans at present to move away from the system of nationally prescribed thresholds in relation to the development as specified in an application for planning permission.”
If as the Scottish Government Minister stated in the same letter that the “nature of the project” is a consideration in the planning system and can be used by the developer to avoid the Hierarchy of Development Scotland Regulations 2009, then to avoid confusion, what constitutes this “nature of the project” should be clearly defined within the National Planning Regulations.
Hence the relevance of this petition on a National Planning issue.
Our local MSPs Alison McInnes and Nanette Milne raised questions at the Scottish Parliament but the Government gave the impression from their replies that they were comfortable with the situation where it was up to the developer if they chose to adhere to the Hierarchy of Developments Scotland Regulations 2009 or not.
The most recent reply on the 9th January 2014 from The Minister for Local Government and Planning to a question raised by Alison McInnes MSP on this issue of avoiding developments being classed as “Major” stated :-
“It is for the applicant to decide what size of development they wish to apply for”
The Scottish Government have been unable to quantify how prevalent this practice is in our planning system.
Planning Aid for Scotland was consulted PAS/C/2011/223 on the specific issue raised of 18 homes on a 2.655ha being divided to avoid being classed as Major. Their advice being that it could be open to a legal challenge.
The applications were discussed at several local Community Council meetings. Comments from our local councillors varied from the simple “they can do it” to “if it doesn’t say it is illegal it must be legal” to “it’s a major development”. In a letter from Aberdeenshire Council their opinion was that the developer could have submitted 18 separate applications for the 18 houses if they had so wished.
If as the Scottish Government Minister stated in the same letter that the “nature of the project” is a consideration in the planning system and can be used by the developer to avoid the Hierarchy of Development Scotland Regulations 2009, then to avoid confusion, what constitutes this “nature of the project” should be clearly defined within the National Planning Regulations.
Hence the relevance of this petition on a National Planning issue.
Our local MSPs Alison McInnes and Nanette Milne raised questions at the Scottish Parliament but the Government gave the impression from their replies that they were comfortable with the situation where it was up to the developer if they chose to adhere to the Hierarchy of Developments Scotland Regulations 2009 or not.
The most recent reply on the 9th January 2014 from The Minister for Local Government and Planning to a question raised by Alison McInnes MSP on this issue of avoiding developments being classed as “Major” stated :-
“It is for the applicant to decide what size of development they wish to apply for”
The Scottish Government have been unable to quantify how prevalent this practice is in our planning system.
Planning Aid for Scotland was consulted PAS/C/2011/223 on the specific issue raised of 18 homes on a 2.655ha being divided to avoid being classed as Major. Their advice being that it could be open to a legal challenge.
The applications were discussed at several local Community Council meetings. Comments from our local councillors varied from the simple “they can do it” to “if it doesn’t say it is illegal it must be legal” to “it’s a major development”. In a letter from Aberdeenshire Council their opinion was that the developer could have submitted 18 separate applications for the 18 houses if they had so wished.
Where it was considered
Official Report-
17 Jun 20141 mention
-
28 Oct 20141 mention
-
13 Jan 20151 mention
Signatures by country
13 online signaturesComments
4 comments, oldest first-
Brian Mennie 22 Mar 2014This loophole in planning application should be closed to prevent open exploitation by developers which purely for commercial gain.
-
J Sco 2 Apr 2014It is indicative of how communities are not consulted with regards to planning applications. The planning laws seem to be on the applicants side, rather than the opposition or the community. Councillors try to hide behind red tape and officials but at the end of the day they still have the power to refuse and allow it to be appealed. After all councillors are there to represent the people who elected them but that is all forgotten when an election is over and a candidate returned, after all it's a job, since councillors are now paid as opposed to what it used to be be.
-
BobSmith 15 Apr 2014Planning regulations as they stand favour the developers not those opposing the applications.
Then again what would you expect, "Big Business" runs the governments both at Westminster and Holyrood and can exert pressure on local councils. Donald Trump is a prime example of this -
Marion Chalmers 16 Apr 2014It looks like that the ink was hardly dry on the Hierarchy of Developments Regulations 2009 before planners and government officials had devised and agreed this scheme to avoid it?
It would be interesting to know the substance of the conversation between Scottish Government officials and Aberdeenshire Council planners which gave this scheme the green light?