Hansard

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 system. Everyone will be aware of the extended debate that has been held on that issue over the past few years, which has been reflected in some of today's contributions.It was interesting to hear Sandra White say that she has had to wait some time before we finally got to this discussion. That is because there has been a shift in the debate on planning. We have spent a great deal of committee time wrestling with issues on which we did not expect to spend as much time, because we found that there is far more to planning reform than just the third-party right of appeal, even though it is a significant element of the debate. I am grateful that we have resisted the temptation to see planning reform only in the context of the third-party right of appeal, which is what some people want. This debate has been far broader, healthier and better thought through than the debate over the past weeks and months. We have, therefore, not had the dialogue of the deaf, where people just say, "You're either in favour of development or opposed. You're either a cowboy or a nimby." Such dialogue does not get us far.Mike Rumbles said that issues should be examined on their merits. I guess that I would say this, but it is absolutely true—I do consider issues on their merits. I do not think that anyone in this room has come swiftly to a position. I certainly have not. The issue has taken a great deal of thought. In the end, you have to judge where best to put your time, energy, resources and entitlements in order to get a planning system that works and does what we want it to do. We are clear that the system needs to be plan-led and should provide certainty, so time and energy have to be put into forming a credible plan-led system. We must recognise that. Planners themselves said that it is critical that they have the space, time and energy to focus on that.We considered the arguments on rights of appeal at considerable length and we came to the conclusion that there are better ways of restoring fairness and balance and of engaging local people and other community interests in planning. Of course, we recognise the extent and depth of feeling throughout Scotland that the existing planning system does not meet communities' needs. All members will have had direct experience of people feeling disappointed. We also know about the importance of being honest with people about the capacity of the planning system to make people feel better about it. From the outset, we have said that our modernisation measures will strengthen the involvement of local communities and better reflect local views.There are those who say that anyone who is concerned about development in local communities is a nimby, but our package of proposals for community engagement will give the community a critical role that means it has to get involved rather than just be reactive and resist development, as John Home Robertson said.Our commitment has led to our proposals to introduce a new framework for consultation and development plans, enhanced neighbour notification arrangements, measures to make inquiries more inclusive, requirements for pre-application consultation and increased transparency in decision making. We also propose to introduce: greater scrutiny of cases that require environmental impact assessment, that represent significant departures from development plans, or that are large-scale bad neighbour developments or key local authority interest cases; improvements to the enforcement regime; and a tighter approach to the current rights of appeal. Those measures will tackle some of the things in the current planning system that people say have let them down.We must acknowledge the real challenge of proper community engagement. It is not just a tick-box exercise. It is not about identifying one local group, talking to it and then saying, "That's the community done." We also understand that communities have a range of views.We have always said that our package of modernisation proposals aims to strike a balance that combines better quality public involvement with greater efficiency in taking planning decisions. We need to deliver our economic, social and environmental objectives, which means having the right development in the right place. Sometimes, hard choices will require to be made. That is why our proposals focus on securing meaningful community engagement at the front end of the development planning and application processes. The resources that are available to planning authorities should be focused in that way. That is where they can make a real difference.There is an alternative approach, which Mike Rumbles, Sandra White and Donald Gorrie have tended towards in their amendments 126, 130 and 251, albeit in a limited form and without embracing it whole-heartedly. That approach would focus community engagement at the end of the planning application process and give community interests the ability to challenge the determinations of planning authorities. The price of that would be not only the creation of uncertainty and delay but the further concentration of decision making at the centre rather than at local level, thereby unbalancing the system. We need to consider the frustrations of those who see the decisions of local authorities being second-guessed at appeal and of those who are frustrated by the decisions that their local authority takes. In any system, it is not possible to satisfy both sets of people. Clearly, those who argue for and against third-party right of appeal have diametrically opposite concerns about where the system has let them down. Third-party right of appeal would reduce the focus on early engagement, which we see as key to a successful planning system in which trust can be built. Indeed, one could argue that third-party right of appeal would create the perverse incentive to revert to tick-box engagement. From the local authority perspective, the question would be, why should we spend huge amounts of time in encouraging good engagement at the local level if, at the end of the process, someone can simply lodge an appeal? Third-party right of appeal would serve only to reinforce the reactive role. Indeed, having a third-party right of appeal would require us to re-examine the notification process. We have said that we recognise the importance of local authority interest cases, for example. We have also said that the notification direction system, with the force of legislation behind it, will address that issue. The committee took evidence on that. Under Sandra White's amendment 130, appeals made under the third-party right of appeal would be made according to a list of categories, a number of which are already involved in the notification system. Under the proposed system, a notification would be made, the minister would look at it and possibly clear it, only for an appeal to be made. Such circular procedures would create a huge amount of churn and extra work in the system. The Executive does not support amendments 126 or 130. I ask the committee to reject them and the consequential amendments 201, 218, 206 and 219.Donald Gorrie's amendment 251 is broadly the same as his amendment 192, which the committee rejected last week. The only difference is the terminology: he has substituted the word "appeal" for the word "review". He still seeks to refer cases to ministers before a decision is issued. Although amendment 251 is about appeals against decisions, the current drafting appears to introduce a means of ministerial scrutiny that would duplicate existing notification provisions. In particular, the drafting follows the changes that we have proposed for the handling of local authority interest cases and development plan departures, but is more limited in scope. Only major developments that involved either local authority interest or breaches of the development plan would be defined as significant. The suggested list of issues that ministers may consider in deciding whether to hold an inquiry does not appear to differ from the planning assessments that we carry out at present when applications are notified to ministers. It is entirely unnecessary to add a further formal procedure to the system, especially one that adds no improved scrutiny.I note that the appeal role would be limited to community councils, bodies or trusts with the relatively narrow focus of enhancing the amenity of their area, but none of those is truly representative of an area, as Donald Gorrie acknowledged. His approach is not inclusive. We are fully committed to our proposals to enhance the scrutiny of local authority interest cases and development plan departures. Amendment 251 would add nothing to that commitment, so I ask the committee to reject it.I have a couple of other points. I will be brief. First, Mike Rumbles raised the issue of neighbour notification. He will, of course, be aware that we have improved it to give people more confidence in the process. Although we share a commitment to putting in place a system that is fairer and more effective, our ideas about the role of councillors are different. The democratic authority of councils to make decisions at the local level is involved. Sandra White also picked up on the issue. In cases where the decision is made by a planning official, a problem arises if elected members go against it. That said, people's faith in officials is not necessarily shared across the board.Sandra White argued for a limited right of appeal, but all the examples that she identified would be subject to enhanced scrutiny as a result of the bill. For example, a major retail development that represented a departure from the development plan would have to be notified to ministers.Members should acknowledge that we have worked to limit the first-party right of appeal. We are advised that it is not possible to eliminate that right, but we have put in place conditions that will keep matters local in certain circumstances, prevent applicants from making a completely new case on appeal—as has happened—and reduce time limits for appeal, to ensure that developers engage at an early stage. We are exerting increasing pressure on developers, to ensure that they rise to the challenge of community engagement.Members have said that people sometimes feel that they have been treated unfairly. The test of the bill is whether it will be effective and do what we want it to do. Will people feel that they have been treated more fairly? If a local authority takes a decision that the developer appeals to the minister, who finds against them, they may feel as if they have been treated unfairly. If the same minister is appealed to by a third party, whose appeal is also rejected, I do not think that, somehow, that third party is going to feel that they have been treated fairly. The reality is that people can feel disappointed and let down simply because their arguments are not accepted, but that is different from the process being unfair.In the bill, we try to ensure that communities will be engaged at an early stage and that they will be involved in drawing up development plans. The primacy of the development plan will create certainty and ensure that proposals for a new development that departs from it cannot appear later.I acknowledge that members are still arguing for a third-party right of appeal, but our balanced package of proposals addresses their concerns. We acknowledge the role of communities and the hard job that people in the planning system must do when they decide where to put the developments that we all need but nobody wants. Members should reject the amendments, which would simply extend the process, and work on the package of proposals, to ensure that communities can engage at the stage when they can make a difference.