Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006

27 Sep 2006 · S2 · Communities Committee

Item of business

Planning etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Rumbles, Mike LD West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine Watch on SPTV

I have brought effectively only one amendment before the committee. I aim to address what I hope is a non-partisan issue that I believe is also an issue of natural justice. Amendment 126 aims to put right a wrong. Is that not our role as MSPs? Should we not be able to examine an issue on its merits?I know that ministers are incredibly reluctant to accept back-bench amendments that are lodged at stage 2 because nearly all amendments are lodged to further an MSP's policy objectives, although there is nothing wrong with that. However, back-bench amendments are resisted by ministers mostly because they do not sit well with the policy objectives that the ministers are here to see through. That is also fine, and I have no objection to it. However, I hope that colleagues will see that on this occasion I have left the politics of the bill to others because I want to tackle one issue to correct a wrong in the system. When we pass new laws it is important to remember that we should always be concerned about how the legislation will impact on individuals.What is the wrong that I want us to put right? I am sure that members all know that, as the law stands, there is no right of appeal in planning for the people who are directly affected by planning applications—the neighbours who are in receipt of a neighbour notification about a local development. As we all know, if an application is turned down, a developer has the right of appeal. That is fine. However, if an application is approved, there is no such right of appeal for neighbours, who can be badly affected by what is sometimes a perverse decision.We are all human beings, and human beings make mistakes. Our local councillors are no different. Although I am certain that the decisions are usually of the highest standard and the highest order, no one—not even the minister, I assume—would consider councillors to be infallible. Mistakes are made. Amendment 126 would give people the chance to have mistakes rectified.I will give members one example of what I mean, because I need only one example. My constituents, Mr and Mrs Desmond, of Crathes on Deeside, have given me permission to make this point because they are very concerned about it. Their lives have been blighted by our local councillors' decision to allow the building of a house in their neighbour's garden, against the recommendation of planning officials.I am not questioning the right of our councillors to grant permission, but the planning system has come into disrepute because there is a feeling that the process is stacked against people such as Mr and Mrs Desmond—certainly, that is what Mr and Mrs Desmond feel. I am using that example because the system affects real people. This is not an academic exercise. There is no way of overturning what Mr and Mrs Desmond consider to be a perverse decision that went against all the recommendations of the experts and officials.I want to see a balance returned to the system for people such as Mr and Mrs Desmond. It is not good enough to say that the bill is good and that the new system will be effective and work well. Mistakes are made because people make mistakes. We should have the good grace not only to recognise that—I am sure that we all do—but to take practical action to put the mistakes right. That is simply what I am asking the committee to do this morning.In particular, I am appealing to the minister's sense of fair play. I hope that she recognises that, no matter how good the new system is, people are human and mistakes will be made. We have the opportunity to enable wrongs to be put right, and I hope that she will accept amendment 126 in the spirit in which I have presented it. I do not want to comment on the other amendments in the group. I am here specifically to put right what I consider a wrong.I move amendment 126.

Search Hansard contributions

Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006

In the same item of business