Hansard

This is third time lucky, as it is the third time that we have turned up to debate the issue. Thankfully, we are being heard today, so I am grateful to the committee. I think that my amendment 130 is pretty straightforward, but others might not deem it to be so. It was in the proposal for a third-party planning rights of appeal bill that I produced in 2003, and although I am fully aware of the changes that the committee has recommended and the Executive has made through the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, I do not think that they go far enough.Two weeks ago, Jackie Baillie said that she had produced an eloquent and elegant amendment, and Christine Grahame said that I would be presenting a "full-frontal" amendment. I do not know whether members will see amendment 130 in that light, but I hope that they will listen to my case for a limited third-party right of appeal, because justice, fairness and transparency must be seen by everyone to come before the Parliament. That is one reason why I lodged amendment 130.The third-party right of appeal that I propose in my amendment is limited, as it would not affect national development. I understand the position fully. When I was a substitute on the Communities Committee, I read various documents about the national planning framework, and I came to the conclusion that I would not include national development in my proposed third-party right of appeal. However, such a right needs to exist for other situations. Mike Rumbles mentioned neighbours, but I feel that that is perhaps too limited.Individuals should have a right to appeal, and my amendment 130 would give that to"any person who made representations relating to the application to the planning authority".At the moment, any person who makes representations to a planning authority as an objector has a right to be heard, whether in an inquiry or in a public hearing, so amendment 130 follows on from current legislation. That provision exists because the public should have such a right. If they have taken the trouble to object to a particular planning development in their area, they should have the right to appeal. That is why my amendment 130 refers to "any person who made representations",unlike Donald Gorrie's amendment 251, which refers to community councils. The term "any person" can refer to a body of people, whether or not that is a community council.Members are familiar with the third-party right of appeal. My proposal, which is fairly straightforward, is that it should be limited to the following categories. The first two categories are applications that are"subject to an environmental impact assessment"or which relate to"land the planning authority owns or in which it has an interest".The third category is where "the granting of planning permission in respect of the application is contrary to … any current strategic or local development",or where any recommendation has been made about an application"by officers employed by the planning authority".At the moment, an objection can be made on those grounds. I commend the Executive for saying that it wants to listen to objectors and for the consultation process that is set out in the bill. The process will allow for people to be listened to, but at the end of the day they would have no right to appeal a decision, unless amendment 130 were agreed to and the application came under proposed new section 47(2C) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.I cite the example that Pauline McNeill MSP gave in her recent evidence to the committee:"Another problem is that when a planning committee refuses to grant planning permission on the basis of the local plan, that does not prevent the developer from appealing and arguing that the local authority failed to apply the local plan and that the developer has a different interpretation of it. The local authority is judge and jury on the local plan but, unlike anyone else, developers have the right to challenge it when there is a dispute."—Official Report, Communities Committee, 13 September 2006; c 3921. That is why a third-party right of appeal should be included in the bill. As I said, it is unfair that people who are directly affected and who have taken the trouble of making representations cannot challenge a decision. For example, Tesco is proposing a huge development in Partick. Although Tesco has pulled back its plans, the development will still change the face of the area—shops will close down and so forth. If the development goes ahead—against the local plan and local feeling—objectors and the local community will have no right of appeal.I suggested previously that, in order to level the playing field, the right of appeal should be taken away from the developer, in which case a third-party right of appeal would not be needed. That suggestion was turned down. People out there—objectors, interested parties and local communities—feel that, although they will be listened to and consulted, at the end of the day they will have no recourse to appeal a decision. I am not saying that every appeal would be successful or that an appeal would be made in every case. I have even gone so far as to suggest that a charge of £20 or £25, which would not be prohibitive, could be made for appealing a decision. I am saying not that a third-party right of appeal should be open to everyone but that fairness ought to prevail. At the moment, fairness does not prevail. I do not want to labour the point. I will hear what the minister has to say. Am I allowed to come back in again after the minister, convener?