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

Grahame, Christine SNP South of Scotland Watch on SPTV

I heard what Mike Rumbles had to say, but amendment 126 is too broad. In the example that he gave, he kept talking about a mistake by a planning officer. Just because a decision goes against someone, they cannot say that a mistake has been made. To say that a mistake has been made is to make a highly subjective judgment. A mistake or an error is defined in law; it is not the same as a decision that one does not like. The example that Mike Rumbles gave related to a situation that would be covered in amendment 130, when an authority had gone against a planning officer's recommendation. It would have been better if Mike Rumbles had gone down that route. Amendment 126 is far too broad.I am always sympathetic to Donald Gorrie's amendments; I only wish that the spirit of what he wants to achieve could be put down on paper. I worry about how the provisions that amendment 251 proposes would operate. The proposed new subsection (2D) that would be inserted into section 47 of the 1997 act by amendment 251 states:"In deciding whether to hold an inquiry … the Scottish Ministers may take account of … local public opinion".It is difficult to work out how on earth that could be done. Would a referendum be used, for example? I know where Donald Gorrie is going with the provision and acknowledge that his arguments for it are commendable, but I doubt that it would be operable.The same applies to the definition that Donald Gorrie suggests should be contained in proposed new section 47(2F) of the 1997 act. A relevant body is defined as one whose"members have a substantial connection with the area affected by the proposed development".It would be easy to define "a substantial connection" in cases that were black and white, but less easy to do so in cases that were greyer. Would the provision include people who used to live in the area a decade or even 50 years previously, but who had maintained contact with it for sentimental reasons? The provision would be difficult to implement. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 251, even though I support much of the spirit behind it.I obviously support my colleague Sandra White's amendment 130. It may not be the best drafted amendment, but it is more tightly drafted than amendments 126 and 251. It is narrow, in that it would apply only in limited circumstances, and in providing that someone "may appeal", it would merely give them discretion to appeal.I want to focus on proposed new subsection (2C)(c)(i) that amendment 130 would insert into section 47 of the 1997 act, which mentions the local development plan for the area. In our discussions, the committee has spoken at length about the need for people in communities to feel secure about the local development plan. We know that many of those plans were found to be so out of date that they were almost completely irrelevant to what was happening.If people are to feel secure in the cycle of local development plans, they must be able to appeal when planning permission is granted for a development that is contrary to the local development plan. In the light of all that has been said by the committee, ministers and others about the need for the local development plan to provide people with a sense of security, surely that is a crystal clear example of a situation in which the community should have an absolute right of appeal. If a community found out that 50 houses were to be built in an area that was not scheduled for housing in the local development plan, the developer—who would have a right of appeal—could go ahead, but the people who would end up getting the development in their area would have no right of appeal.I believe that people should have a right of appeal in the narrow circumstances that Sandra White has outlined in amendment 130, which I commend to the committee.

Search Hansard contributions

Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006

In the same item of business