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

Harvie, Patrick Green Glasgow Watch on SPTV

I will begin with the question that Mike Rumbles and Scott Barrie touched on—whether the third-party right of appeal is consistent with the bill and the principles that underlie it, which are that we want people to engage early and that we want more consultation, participation and engagement. The three amendments are variants on the same proposal, but I think that the basic idea of widening rights of appeal to third parties is consistent with the bill. It means saying to people that although they might technically be known as third parties, they are not in third place in the system.People who are called third parties are often the ones who are most directly and fundamentally affected by decisions in the planning system. We should almost consider that they are first parties. Giving them fewer rights than the other parties in the process is part of the problem. The bill is partly about rebalancing that. It seeks to bring third parties—communities and individuals—into the system and ensure that their voices are heard. Having a third-party right of appeal is simply a way of making it clear to people that that engagement is meaningful.Mike Rumbles expressed his confidence that planning authorities throughout Scotland make decisions of the highest quality. Some might call that view generous; I have spoken to councillors who do. I have also spoken to councillors who acknowledge privately that applications for developments are granted permission against the better judgment of the councillors who make the decision, because they do not want to be taken to the appeals stage. It is unreasonable for that stage to exert such pressure in only one direction.The comparison that I cannot help making is with the court system. If our courts were overburdened and under great pressure to get their work done, it would be outrageous and ludicrous to say that we would solve the problem by denying people a right of appeal. I know that we are not talking about the criminal justice system, but many people whose lives are affected negatively by planning decisions might say that having to put up with a major development that they find damaging to their lives and communities is much like being given a prison sentence. It is reasonable that we make that comparison.In speaking to the committee previously, the minister acknowledged that the current system, in which only one side has the right of appeal, is unfair. In referring to the system we have used the word unfair, so let us make it fairer. We should remember the strength of feeling that people expressed in the Executive's consultation on the issue. I think that 86 per cent were in favour of third-party right of appeal. We should also remember the strength of feeling that we witnessed in our own pre-legislative public event before the bill began its formal progress through Parliament.Scott Barrie says that we are wrong to focus on the end of the planning process. People will get to the end of their engagement and objection, the decision will be made and sometimes they will still not get what they want—that is unavoidable. However, they must believe that they have been treated fairly. If people do not get what they want and they feel that they have been treated unfairly because they do not have a right of appeal or because a developer has used their right of appeal, they will be less likely to trust the system and engage with it in the future which, as Scott Barrie rightly said, we all want them to do.The case for third-party right of appeal is extremely strong. All three amendments that are before us—amendments 126, 130 and 251—have some merit. There are still various issues around, for example, whether specific local decisions and the neighbours affected by them should be referred to explicitly. There are also issues around local authorities that have an interest in particular developments. However, the strongest issue for me is developments that go against agreed development plans. We say that we want a plan-led system. If a development plan is subject to genuine and meaningful public involvement, that will give it status and people will trust and have confidence in it. That plan is a promise. We need to take more care with and be more concerned about decisions that break that promise.I will vote for all the amendments before us—amendments 126, 130 and 251—in the hope that, as we go through them, a sufficient number of my colleagues will join me to ensure that we pass at least some version of the important third-party right of appeal.

Search Hansard contributions

Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006

In the same item of business