Committee
Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006
27 Sep 2006 · S2 · Communities Committee
Item of business
Planning etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
There are strongly held views on both sides of the argument on rights of appeal. Everyone is striving to create a planning system that is open, transparent and delivers a sense of justice to people who engage with it. All MSPs have experience of people who have been let down by the planning system. That is why the bill is long overdue.Amendments 126, 130 and 251 all seek greater fairness and more justice. I understand that desire and I understand why fairness and justice are so necessary. I must say that, in the past, I have seen the attraction of a third-party right of appeal. However, I am now not convinced that such a right would lead to fairness and justice.If an appeal is unsuccessful, people might believe that the decision is wrong. If they continue to feel aggrieved, that means that the system is at fault. Our responsibility as legislators is to ensure that the system is as good as it can be. We must ensure that people are engaged at the earliest opportunity, that they have a sense of ownership in the planning system and that all stakeholders are willing to engage in the process. If we can do those things, we will ensure a greater sense of fairness and justice.Offering a right of appeal would not necessarily guarantee a change of decision, and people and communities might feel the same bitterness and resentment that they feel now when bad decisions are made. I therefore do not feel that amendments 126, 130 and 251 are necessary at this stage. The improvements that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will make to the planning system will create a better, more open and more transparent framework for the planning process. Everybody will be able to engage in the system as equals.I hope that the committee reflects on the views of all the stakeholders we have listened to. Patrick Harvie was right to remind us of what those people who engaged with us at the Communities Committee event had to say. However, we also have an obligation not only to all the stakeholders who came to the committee but to those who came to several other planning events held by the committee in the run-up to the introduction of the bill. That includes the planners who deliver the planning service in Scotland, our local authority elected representatives who sit on planning committees, and developers. Everybody's view is valid and each of us has an obligation to weigh up all those views and decide what they think is in the interests of the people of Scotland and their constituents.I invite Johann Lamont to contribute to the debate on this group of amendments.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Karen Whitefield):
Lab
I open the 25th meeting in 2006 of the Communities Committee. I remind all present that mobile phones should be turned off.The first and only item on the age...
Section 18—Appeals etc
The Convener:
Lab
Amendment 126, in the name of Mike Rumbles, is grouped with amendments 130, 251, 201, 218, 206 and 219.I should have welcomed Mike Rumbles, Sandra White and ...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
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 n...
Ms Sandra White (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
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 c...
The Convener:
Lab
I am afraid that you are not. As the member with the lead amendment in the group, Mike Rumbles has that right. Unfortunately, other members do not.
Ms White:
SNP
I will therefore continue. I am aware that the committee has been considering the bill for many weeks and, as I said, members are familiar with the third-par...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
Mike Rumbles and Sandra White have covered a lot of the arguments for a third-party right of appeal. Amendment 251 tries to keep to what I think is the basic...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
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. Jus...
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate Sandra White on lodging amendment 130 and on the work that she has done in the Parliament over the years to campaign for a limited third-party...
Scott Barrie (Dunfermline West) (Lab):
Lab
Sandra White is right to say that the planning system needs to be transparent, fair and just. There is no doubt about that. My difficulty with amendments 126...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
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 prin...
Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab):
Lab
I agree with Scott Barrie's points. I have been nudging him; perhaps he was looking over my shoulder at my notes.Unfortunately, some of the people who have b...
Euan Robson (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD):
LD
I am interested in Sandra White's amendment 130, which is so limited that I wonder whether it is worth while. People would have to pass through a series of h...
John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab):
Lab
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 hea...
Dave Petrie (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I have listened to all the arguments on both sides and I remain unconvinced about the third-party right of appeal. However, I am not saying that I will not s...
The Convener:
Lab
There are strongly held views on both sides of the argument on rights of appeal. Everyone is striving to create a planning system that is open, transparent a...
The Deputy Minister for Communities (Johann Lamont):
Lab
Amendment 126 from Mike Rumbles and amendment 130 from Sandra White seek to introduce some form of limited third-party right of appeal into the planning syst...
Mike Rumbles:
LD
We have had a fascinating and constructive debate, which has teased out misunderstandings. I am disappointed by my own inability to get across the purpose of...
John Home Robertson:
Lab
That is a threat. Laughter.
Mike Rumbles:
LD
I thought that the convener made the point well that we are all here to try to do the best for the system. That is why I am making an appeal. I feel that 99 ...
The Convener:
Lab
The question is, that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Convener:
Lab
There will be a division.
ForHarvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)AgainstBarrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) Grahame, Christine (South of...
The Convener:
Lab
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 126 disagreed to.
Amendment 130 moved—Ms Sandra White.
The Convener:
Lab
The question is, that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.