Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 11 May 2000

11 May 2000 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Telecommunications

Tosh, Murray Con South of Scotland Watch on SPTV

I associate myself with all the positive remarks that have been made about the work of the staff on the Transport and the Environment Committee, and I congratulate the committee's convener on bringing this piece of work to fruition. His good luck in being able to launch his report on the same day as the Stewart report's publication has made his conclusions virtually unassailable.

When the committee addressed the issue, it understood perfectly well why the initial approach to developing telecommunications had been through a system of permitted development rights. It was essential to get the industry up and running, to set national standards and to emphasise the rights of the developer at that stage. However, we quickly came to recognise that those rights had been granted at considerable cost.

Evidence to the committee showed that communities throughout the country had been disfranchised and local authorities disempowered by the process. We heard examples of situations in which even the operators of the masts had recognised that mistakes had been made and had repositioned some of them, but not enough to please the people of Coldstream, Glenboig, Kinross and other places that have been mentioned. I could also mention Gullane, from where I had a letter this week, and Bridge of Weir, from where I also had a letter recently. People all over Scotland seem to be protesting about the lack of consideration of amenity in the development of masts and equipment.

When we took evidence, we were careful to take account of the views, authority and expertise of people involved in the planning process. We interviewed officials from COSLA and from councils across the land and asked them to spell out precisely what the prior approval system meant and what the difference was between that and full planning permission.

It quickly became clear that, from the point of view of the people doing the work, there was little difference. They had to do the same paperwork and administration, the same site visits and the same reports. Only two things were substantially different. First, they got a lesser fee, which is significant in a planning system that is supposed to be funded by fees being paid. Secondly, they had to approve the prior approval applications within 42 days or a deemed consent would be given. The officials therefore had to work harder and faster on the applications for which they were not paid than on other applications. The clock was ticking for them.

We also found that, if the applicant did not fully co-operate and did not supply the necessary information, the clock continued to tick. There was no ability to extend the deadline, as is the case with a normal planning application, where officials will say, "We can't process this until you give us the full response." The officials had to process the prior approval applications and had to reach a decision within 42 days, whether the applicant was thoroughly co-operative or not.

The main point that COSLA wanted to make to the committee concerned how prior approval affected the relationship between the planning system and the public. What is wrong with prior approval is that no one understands how it works and no one has any experience of it in Scotland, except in the context of agriculture and forestry. It is an unknown concept in built areas and I do not think that it is a concept that one can ever get across.

What is wrong with it? There is no neighbour notification and people cannot feel that their representations and objections influence the process. There is frustration with the output and with the developments that result from the system. Every planner knows that the anger and indignation of the public will be vented not on the industry and not on the politicians or the Parliament, but on the local authority, which will be blamed for its negligence in handling something over which it has relatively little power.

We asked the City of Edinburgh Council, which covers many conservation areas, where full planning permission is necessary, whether conservation areas were a technological desert from which it had chased the telecommunications industry. The answer was a resounding no. What drives the industry is the money that is to be made from it. The telecommunication companies do not want full planning powers, but if that is the game, they will play by the game. They will adjust to the rules and live by the rules, and the licensing requirements and the money to be made from the process will lead to the industry developing quickly in its third phase throughout Scotland. We have no reason to fear that they will be scared away by the requirement for full planning permission.

Full planning permission will redress the balance; it will give back control to the planning authority and influence and involvement to the people. The situation is over-ripe, and the time has come for us to strike a better balance than that which is in place at present. The Transport and the Environment Committee's report recommends that approach, and I hope that the Executive will agree to implement its proposals.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 11 May 2000

In the same item of business