Scottish Government

Q1

Do existing provisions have a continuing role to play in securing adequate monitoring and enforcement arrangements?

Q2

Is the new power of well being considered an option for securing the effective monitoring of mineral sites?

Q3

What relationship should existing arrangements have with any new charging regime?

Q4

What "best practice" monitoring is needed to provide a level of scrutiny for mineral permissions that is both robust and reasonable?

Q5

What "best practice" is acceptable to ensure proper and ongoing dialogue with local communities?

Q6

Is the ARUP cost estimates, which would eventually be uprated using GDP inflators, a reasonable basis for quantifying "best practice" monitoring and enforcement costs in Scotland?

Q7

Should there be a rebate for a good operator?

Q8

What should authorities produce to show that effective monitoring is taking place?

Q9

Do respondents agree that Option 4, waived where alternative local agreement is reached, represents the most appropriate way of ensuring effective monitoring arrangements are in place?

Q10

Are there other charging options that should be considered?

Q11

Should any fee levels be set on a case by case basis or centrally by the Scottish Executive?

Q12

Are existing enforcement powers considered adequate to ensure that planning authorities can respond effectively to breaches of planning permission?

Q13

What should be defined as a chargeable visit?

Q14

Is there a need to define what constitutes a "site"?

Q15

How many visits should be made annually?

Q16

What should site visits cover?

Q17

How should dormant/inactive sites be monitored?

Q19

What action should be taken against operators who do not pay a fee?

Q20

Should monitoring and enforcement fees apply to other forms of permission and if so which ones?

Q21

What impact will the proposals outlined in this paper have on mineral operators?