New Petitions

Good morning and thank you for allowing me to speak to the committee this morning. I am here today because of a highly contentious planning application concerning Birkhill, by Dundee, and the residents of Dronley Road in particular. The first planning application was withdrawn by the applicant because of road safety concerns that had been raised. The plans were resubmitted and the only change was that the roundabout had been moved further along Dronley Road. That will present considerable danger to my immediate neighbours and me. I draw the committee's attention to appendix A, paragraph 3.1.

Appendix A relates to the reports sent to Angus Council. The report states:"Tayside Police have suggested that the roundabout is poorly positioned and should be developed further south opposite an area of public open space."Appendix B contains part of the reporter's findings. He states:"I agree that access to the existing 22 Dronley Road direct from the proposed roundabout is not ideal".The planning application was discussed with Angus Council, which recognised the problems that were being created and therefore refused the application. The applicant then applied to the Scottish Executive, whose reporter overturned Angus Council's decision. Why should one person be allowed to overturn a decision made by due democratic process? If the planning committee had approved the plans, the residents would have had no right of appeal—we would have had to accept that decision. However, the applicants have a right to appeal to the Scottish Executive. It appears that the system is totally biased in favour of the applicant.Appendix C is the submission that the applicant made to the reporter. The last sentence of paragraph 12 states:"The occupants of 22 Dronley Road might experience a measure of disturbance from car headlights in the dark winter evenings".Paragraph 14 states:"Ninety dwellings would generate a minimal number of trips, and would not give rise to environmental problems."Paragraph 15 states:"The engineers advise that if there was a further access"via the previously constructed drive"there would be an impact on the amenity of adjacent neighbours, including glare from headlights."Appendix D is a map showing the position of the new roundabout. That roundabout would result in my property being subject to light and noise pollution, which would adversely affect our amenity. That seems to be of no consequence to the developer.This is a case of discrimination against us and the operation of double standards. Our human rights seem to be being breached, but the cost of taking court action to defend those rights is outwith my means. I would like this committee to consider a system whereby individuals of limited means can receive the justice that is their right. We have a new Parliament in Scotland; let us have a better, more democratic and fairer system for our planning laws, which should not be ruled by bankroll accountability. There is no point in granting the people of Scotland rights if those rights are placed outwith their financial reach.

This is Mr Frank Ellis, who is the councillor for our area.

If the council grants the developer planning permission, we have no right to appeal against that decision. However, if the council rejects the planning application, the developer has the right to go to the Scottish Executive. Objectors have no right of appeal at all. The only course left to us is through the Court of Session. My solicitor has told me that there is no point in taking that course of action because the cost is totally horrendous. It is outwith the means of any normal working person. Objectors have no redress at all.

Yes.

There was a report recently on standards in public life. I do not have it with me, but members can check that it says that third-party involvement—that is, the involvement of objectors—could be taken into account. The only downside of that mentioned in the report was that the work load could be overwhelming. Whoever makes decisions should be accountable to objectors.Members will be aware that the Minister for Transport and Planning, Sarah Boyack, launched a four-month consultation on planning reforms. Surely, as part of that, this kind of issue could be taken on board. Things should be transparent and people should be accountable.

My objection is this: Angus Council sat round the table with elected members from the area—people who know the area—but one person seemed to have the right to overrule a democratic decision. One person has overturned a decision that was made by the Angus Council planning committee.

Yes, it should.

The appeals system for planning was introduced in 1947, as members will know. I am not saying that it has worked perfectly but it has worked. However, controversial issues with wide implications, including human rights implications—we have all signed up to human rights—mean that we will have to review the planning system. Mr Philips's human rights have been infringed by an Executive decision. That has to be challenged. We thought that the best people to consider how to make progress with that challenge were members of the Parliament. There has to be reform.

No.

Yes.