PE395, from Mr C Cotchin, asks the Executive to examine the local authority planning and environmental regulations, with a view to amendment. The petitioner was particularly concerned about protecting people who live next to low-use commercial premises from incoming companies that increase the intensity of use. We agreed to seek the Executive's views, which we have received. The Executive's response makes it clear that while the Executive keeps legislation under general review at all times, it has no plans to examine the issues that the petition raises.The Executive draws attention to what is and is not regarded as development. If the former use and the new use fall under the same class in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the change of use is not development, as the response explains in detail. The response makes it clear that the Executive also considers that the use classes order, which was last revised in 1997, does not require to be reviewed. It is suggested that the petitioner should write to the Executive, detailing the circumstances that prompted the petition, and that that evidence will be taken into account in any future review.The Executive appears to be satisfied with the use classes order. It also seems content that current procedures to deal with noise nuisance are adequate. However, the petitioner is of the contrary view. Although the local circumstances that prompted his petition have been resolved through planning procedures, he feels that those procedures are cumbersome and do not provide sufficient protection to the public. It is therefore suggested that the petitioner should be invited to submit detailed comments to the Executive, as outlined, with a view to informing any future review of the use classes order. If members think that that is not enough, we can refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for further consideration.
Official Report · Committee
Current Petitions
Planning and Environmental Regulations (PE395)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- John McAllion Lab 3
- Dr Winnie Ewing SNP 1
- Phil Gallie Con 1
- Dorothy-Grace Elder Ind 1
The record
6 contributionsIf someone has bought a house next to an existing development and then another development has come along—another factory, say—that person would have had access to the local plan when they bought the house, which would have advised them what the area was designated for. Is the petitioner suggesting that there is not enough protection if the local authority fundamentally changes the plan?
That may well be what he is getting at.
I recall a case that involved a workshop that was fairly quiet before someone came along and created a joinery operation in the building. The change in the use of the building had a significant effect on the adjacent neighbour, whose house was not new—it had been there for many years. The effects on the individual seemed not to have been taken into account by the local planning department. Perhaps that was a local issue, on which the local planners had to stand up and be counted. However, I understand this chap's unhappiness at being faced with a situation like that. The responsibility lies very much with the planners.
It is a question of what the council zones for. The wording of the petition is rather unfortunate; it should have been more catch-all. The petitioner asks that"people already living next to low use commercial premises are given protection from incoming companies who cause a subsequent increase in intensity of use."That increase could be business of the same type, for which the area is zoned, getting better or it could be the situation that exists in the east end of Glasgow, where an area that was zoned for what were formerly called noxious trades had a tannery that was turned into a cattle incinerator—a much worse thing. It depends a great deal on the zoning requirement, as laid down by the councils. The whole planning law situation needs a shake up. Instances such as this one occur far too regularly.
The Executive has said that it is prepared to listen to any detailed points that the petitioner has to make. We should recommend that he write to the Executive and, if he is still not satisfied, that he should come back to the Public Petitions Committee. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 7 May 2002 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 7 May 2002 (Morning) Petitions · 2
- New Petitions Petitions · 29
- New Petitions Petitions · 37
- New Petitions Petitions · 31
- New Petitions Petitions · 71
- New Petitions Petitions · 113
- New Petitions Petitions · 5
- New Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 10
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.