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

Home Robertson, John Lab East Lothian Watch on SPTV

Mike Rumbles cited the case of a neighbour who feels aggrieved when a local authority grants planning permission for a development next door. We have all heard of such cases a few times over the years in our constituencies—it is a familiar story. The other side of the story is that a happy applicant has been granted permission to build a house next door. This is about making decisions. In an ideal world, it would be lovely to get 100 per cent consensus for or against every proposed development but, as we all know, life is not like that. At the end of the day, where there is no agreement, someone—preferably the local authority, but in some cases the Scottish ministers—must make a decision. It does no one any favours to prolong the process for years with a series of appeals and procedures that delay matters, cost money and are aggravating for everyone concerned.We understand that the bill is intended to promote better, more widespread community engagement at the earlier stages of consideration of local plans. Let us face it—we all need developments. We all live in houses, and houses are needed for a growing population. We need affordable houses in our communities, landfill sites, infrastructure, roads, shops, power stations and the rest of it, but we tend to want them to be somewhere else. It is human nature for people to want those things to be located in someone else's back yard—out of sight and out of mind. We need sensible discussions on such matters and decent plans, and we need planning applications to be determined once they have been submitted.As members will gather from the tone of my remarks, I am minded to resist the idea of third-party right of appeal. At least, I was until I received the letter that Mr Charles Hammond of Forth Ports sent to all members, urging us to oppose the amendments. Mr Hammond represents a company that is promoting ship-to-ship oil transfer in the Firth of Forth, regardless of the fact that it poses a risk of pollution and will not create one job in Scotland. His letter illustrates the fact that planners, planning authorities, local authorities and the Scottish Executive need to be extremely vigilant in dealing with some development companies. We need to be careful, as there are people around who are looking for fast bucks. I will put the letter to one side, but it illustrates the need for vigilance.I honestly believe that the bill can work, if communities rise to the challenge of engaging in early consideration of plans and if planning authorities are extremely careful, especially when dealing with companies such as Forth Ports.I fear that amendments 126, 130 and 251 would take us back to the old reactive and fundamentally negative approach to planning. At worst, they could provide a charter for protracted obstruction by third-party objectors.We have discussed the arguments at some length. I pay tribute to colleagues in all parties who have urged consideration of the third-party right of appeal, which is important and deserves to be considered seriously. However, we must have the courage of our convictions about the bill. It would be a mistake to put a spanner in the works in the form of a mechanism for third-party appeals.I hope and believe that communities will engage in planning for the future and give positive consideration to the developments that we all need. We should trust local authorities and the Scottish ministers to make the system work. We have discussed the issue at some length. The time has come for the committee to make a decision.

Search Hansard contributions

Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006

In the same item of business