Current Petitions

The first current petition for consideration is PE414, from Mr S Philips, on planning decisions. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the current planning system.Members will recall that the petitioner's interest in this matter arises from a decision by Angus Council to refuse planning permission, owing to road safety concerns. Subsequently, that decision was overturned by the Scottish Executive. The only recourse available to the council and to individuals living in the area is to take the case to the Court of Session. In the petitioner's judgment, that is discriminatory because of the high costs that such a course of action would involve.We agreed to request details of the Executive's position in relation to third-party planning appeals and to pass a copy of the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, for information only. We have now received a response from the Executive, and it is absolutely clear that it"has no plans to introduce a third party right of appeal."It says that it has considered the matter periodically, but believes that such appeals would undermine the efficient and effective operation of the planning system, would create delays and"could discourage economic and industrial investment".In any case,"Third party appellants might not be representative of the wider community".The Executive acknowledges the importance of the participation of third parties in the planning process,"both through involvement during the preparation of development plans and through commenting on planning applications."Recently it issued a consultation document entitled "Getting Involved in Planning", which aims further to improve public involvement in the system. A summary of that document's main proposals is attached to the papers that have been circulated to members.In response to our question about ECHR compliance, the Executive says that existing planning legislation"is compatible with the Convention without further amendment."However, a case relating to the ECHR and such appeals has come before the courts in Northern Ireland and is awaiting judgment. If that judgment has implications for Scotland, the Executive will take those into account. A judgment by the Court of Session noted that the right of appeal to the Court of Session against planning decisions made by Scottish ministers"is sufficient to meet the terms of the ECHR."We have also been given information on the number of planning appeals that have been upheld by the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit. Over the past three years, the unit upheld less than one third of appeals.It is suggested that, in the light of the consultation exercise on public involvement in the planning system, we should agree that that consultation would be the most appropriate place for concerns about the issue raised by the petitioner to be voiced and taken into account by the Executive. We could suggest to the petitioner that he submit a response to that consultation. It is further suggested that we agree to take no further action, other than to copy the Executive's response to the petitioner and to the clerk of the Transport and the Environment Committee for information.Given the large number of petitions that we receive about planning matters, we may wish to ask the Executive to inform us in due course of the outcome of the consultation exercise and of any proposals for amending the planning system that may result from it.

This may involve a huge amount of work for the clerks, but I suggest that we forward to the Executive the petitions that we have received about planning matters, so that they can be considered as part of its consultation exercise. A very large proportion of the committee's work relates to petitions about planning. It would be a good idea for us to feed those petitions into the Executive's consultation exercise, to make the Executive aware of the problems that can arise.

I am told that that would be no problem. We can suggest to the Executive that it invite the petitioners to make a submission to its consultation exercise. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.