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

Craigie, Cathie Lab Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Watch on SPTV

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 been involved in the debate about a third-party right of appeal have failed to move on. Sandra White pointed out that she discussed the prospect of introducing a member's bill on the subject back in 2003, but some of the arguments, which are still being made this morning, do not take account of the bill's provisions on engaging people and involving them at an early stage.If we were discussing only current legislation, we might all be sitting here saying, "Yes, we do want to introduce some sort of third-party right of appeal." However, we are not discussing current legislation. The bill represents an opportunity to engage people and communities in saying what is right for their area and discussing the development of the local plan. The bill strengthens the notification process in cases where the local authority grants an application that breaches the local plan. It is wrong to say that no one will examine cases in which the local authority breaches the agreed plan.I turn to Mike Rumbles's amendment 126. He started by saying that we should consider the issues on their merits. As a member of the committee who sat through all the evidence on the bill and went on most of the visits, I can say that that is what the committee has done. We examined the issues and listened to the evidence and a majority of the committee agreed with the conclusion that"the package of measures proposed in the Bill will more effectively address the frustrations felt by many of those who have considered the operation of the current planning system to be inequitable."Mike Rumbles gave an example about correcting a mistake. I do not know the details of his constituents' circumstances or whether there were mistakes, but I presume that the final decision was taken by a democratically elected local authority. As democrats, we have to trust in the democratic decisions that are taken.Patrick Harvie made a point about what the term "third party" means to people. To me, someone who is described as a third party is at arm's length. They are not involved in decisions; they are at the fringes of decisions. I repeat that the bill aims to involve communities at an early stage so that they are not at the fringes of the decision-making process but are involved in planning the future of their communities. I want to see that happening right at the outset. I believe that the planning process can be improved for everyone. Like Scott Barrie, I do not want people to feel that it is enough for them to get involved at the end of the process.I do not support amendments 126, 130 or 251, because they go against the aim of the bill, which is to have up-front and early engagement with communities.

Search Hansard contributions

Communities Committee, 27 Sep 2006

In the same item of business