New call-in powers re National Developments
Local authorities
City of Edinburgh Council: Support. Outline of process is similar to call-in powers at present but NPF will provide better context for call-in.
Dundee City Council: It is noted that apparently conflicting information is contained in the White Paper concerning the statutory right of appeal. Clarification is sought as to whether the Executive considers these scrutiny arrangements to be adequate in the context of the general thrust of the White Paper.
East Dunbartonshire Council: Whilst this could be considered to be an inappropriate intervention of national priorities into the local planning authority's autonomy, it should be noted that the Katrine Water project might have been considered to have been national in scale. It's identification in the NPF might in part at least have reduced the amount of debate over the need for the development.
East Renfrewshire Council: The proposals as they stand would produce uncertainty as to who will be processing the Application and where and when the final decision would be made. As it stands the heavy burden of processing such Applications falls to Local Authorities. Furthermore, the various notification and call-in procedures proposed would significantly lengthen the process.
Glasgow City Council: There is concern over the possible implications of this proposal in the absence of further information; and clarification is required on how the Scottish Ministers intend to deal with planning applications for developments within national priority areas identified in the NPF. Where Scottish Ministers call-in and determine national developments, would they also deal with all related applications, e.g. amendments? In such circumstances, the Council could be left to enforce conditions on a development that it has not approved? In instances where Ministers refuse a called-in application, then the only course of appeal will be to the Courts. This would deprive the Council of the opportunity to make the final decision about what happens in its own area and the applicant of the right to make an appeal. It is considered that this effectively undermines the democratic process; and it is unlikely that additional resources would be required to deliver this proposal.
Further details are required from the SE.
Inverclyde Council: This is not all it seems. Planning authorities will have to undertake all the necessary consultations, and then hand the file over to the Executive who has 28 days to decide whether to call in the application. If they donðt want to call it in, they will refer it back to the planning authority and may suggest conditions. This implies an expectation that permission will be granted! What would happen if the planning authority wished to refuse permission? Will the Executive only call in applications it wants refused? What are the criteria which will determine the call in? The Executive considers this power necessary to enable the Ministers to ðintervene where necessary to expedite decisionsð. In practice, this appears little other that a tinkering with the current Notification of Application procedures, which in practice drags out, but rarely changes, the decision by at least 28 days.
Perth & Kinross Council: The ability of the planning authority to determine, or indeed to influence, such planning applications remains unclear, as it will be for Scottish Ministers to call-in if necessary to expedite a decision. It implies a need to identify the location of major developments through the NPF or Development Plan (and such developments cannot always be anticipated). The proposal that the planning authority for some national developments would be the Scottish Executive could be seen as a threat to local democracy.
South Ayrshire Council: There will need to be close liaison between the Scottish Executive and the Planning Authority during this time so that both parties are aware of any issues that arise after the statutory period has expired that may affect the assessment of proposals (for example late consultations or representations received).
Other LA Orgaisations
Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan Joint Liaison Committee ( ELSPJLC): The ELSPJLC has some reservations about the extent of Scottish Ministers discretion to determine the use of key strategic sites and the impact that any powers of call-in will have on local democratic control.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Highlands and Islands Enterprise: While content with the principles put forward for handling planning applications in respect of National Developments, we would urge that the threshold be drawn as high up the value-chain as possible. The key characteristic of a National Development should be its strategic significance for Scotland, not merely its size and we would contend that many "major transport, water and drainage, energy and waste infrastructure projects ... or industrial investments" ought rightly to be seen as Major Developments to be considered by planning authorities. Similar comments would apply to the thresholds used elsewhere in the Hierarchy
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: In principle SEPA do not take issue with providing Ministers with extended powers to call in developments where necessary, we are concerned that the rationale and focus for using these powers is upon the speed of decision making rather than the evidence base of that decision and the need to ensure opportunity for scrutiny by those affected. Developments of national significance will often raise complex environmental issues that require to be fully understood prior to decision making. While SEPA would agree that every effort should be made to ensure that decisions are made expeditiously, it will sometimes be the case that additional information about the environmental effects of the project may need to be gathered and it would be inappropriate for Ministers to "expedite" decisions in advance of such information being available. SEPA wish some safeguards in this regard to ensure there is a clear understanding of the effects of the proposal. The requirement for EIA for many, if not all, of these proposals will of course assist with this.
As a general point, SEPA would question whether such centralisation of decision making as proposed for these types of development will actually speed up decision making. SEPA's experience with called-in applications is that decisions on these would appear to take as long, if not longer, than comparable applications determined by Planning Authorities.
West Lothian Council: Clarification is also required on a number of matters relating to the determination of applications for national developments. If an application is 'called-in', the planning authority should retain the fee, or part of it, as it will be obliged to process it to a point where it can be determined. The authority and third parties should also have full opportunity to represent their views if the application is 'called-in', particularly if it was determined on the basis of the information submitted. The definition of appeal is ambiguous. The diagram refers to the courts but the text to statutory appeal and the courts.
The Development Industry
Bett Homes: Bett Homes require clarification on the definition of national developments. The White Paper is currently silent on this issue. In order to promote a consistent approach across Scotland it cannot be left to Local Authorities to decide. Bett Homes is concerned at this apparent proposal to remove the right of appeal from the applicant in relation to development is this category, for example, major urban regeneration schemes will be considered "national" developments.
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): It is proposed that Scottish Ministers will have the power to call-in and determine applications for National Developments where it is necessary to expedite decisions in the national interest. Public examination of the need for such development would be curtailed and in instances where Ministers refused a called in application, then the only course of appeal would be to the Court. This effectively deprives the applicant the right to make an appeal on planning merits. It is therefore essential that clarification is provided as to how issues such as the need for developments and the planning merits of developments can be discussed at the outset of the NPF.
Other Businesses
ASDA: Where an application is called in this can add considerable costs and delay. Referral back to the local planning authority with conditions may be preferable. Where an application is called in, the proposed right to determine the method through which it will be processed appears to lie with the Scottish Ministers alone. As with planning permission appeals, it should be open to the applicant to demand a public inquiry if that it what they would prefer.
Association of Electricity Producers: The Association supports the ability of Parliament to call in national developments for determination. However, the acceptability of this proposal will depend on the degree to which the public can participate in the decision making process. It is likely that if Ministers call in proposals, a public consultative mechanism will still be required.
British Energy: On the issue of the mandatory ability of Parliament to call in national developments for determination while we are in favour of such a mechanism, we think the acceptability of this proposal will depend on the degree to which the public can participate in the decision making process. We are of the view that if the Ministers call in proposals a public consultative mechanism will still be required. This might take the form of limited hearings focusing on the key issues of need etc. We are of the view that there is a distinction to be made between large scale renewable energy developments, in particular those that will make a material contribution to the Government's environmental objectives and electricity needs as opposed to those developments of smaller scale. It would be very helpful for the development of renewabIes if direction were given on the scale of development, above which Parliamentary call in was possible.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): It is proposed that Scottish Ministers will have the power to call-in and determine applications for National Developments where it is necessary to expedite decisions in the national interest. Public examination of the need for such development would be curtailed and in instances where Ministers refused a called in application, then the only course of appeal would be to the Court. This effectively deprives the applicant the right to make an appeal on planning merits. It is therefore essential that clarification is provided as to how issues such as the need for developments and the planning merits of developments can be discussed at the outset of the NPF.
WBB Minerals: It is unclear whether or not minerals developments, particularly those involving industrial minerals such as silica sand, where there is a high investment in processing facilities to meet high grade specifications, will fall within this category. The secondary legislation specifying the categories of major development that require to be approached in a new way should be available for consultation, before the publication of the Planning Bill.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Drivers Jonas: It is proposed that Scottish Ministers will have the power to call-in and determine applications for National Developments where it is necessary to expedite decisions in the national interest. Public examination of the need for such development would be curtailed and in instances where Ministers refused a called in application, then the only course of appeal would be to the Court. This effectively deprives the applicant the right to make an appeal on planning merits. It is therefore essential that clarification is provided as to how issues such as the need for developments and the planning merits of developments can be discussed at the outset of the NPF.
Community Councils
Gatehouse of Fleet Community Council: Your proposals for National Developments takes away from the local inhabitants the right to object and influence any formal decision which may be made by the Scottish Executive. These proposals we condemn
Balerno Community Council: With reference to the notification and call-in of major applications, refers to recent experience of a public local inquiry and suggests that such matters should be dealt with by written submission to reduce the expense and heartache caused to those like Community Council representatives that have to engage with the process.
Voluntary Organisations
Friends of the Earth Scotland: Under the proposals Ministerial powers to call in proposals are significant. Yet the decisions will remain untransparent. The criteria, rationale and process by which Ministers employ powers to 'call-in' any planning application for their own consideration or for consideration by a public inquiry must be made more transparent, so as to ensure consistency and accountability.
Scottish Council for National Parks: It is not clear from the White Paper how decisions will be arrived at as to which developments are of national importance Will there be a similar arrangement to previous Regional Council call-in procedures in justifying what is a national development and why? Whilst the White Paper says that the need for certain national developments will be decided at the national level by Scottish Ministers and with the full involvement of Parliament, there is the danger that these decisions will be taken for political rather than more objective planning reasons. In such circumstances, it is very important that the professional planning advice given to Scottish Ministers by the Scottish Executive should be in the public domain. SCNP is concerned that when a decision is made by Scottish Ministers, the only appeal route left would be via the courts because clearly Ministers cannot be judge and jury. This means, however, that any challenge to a decision would be restricted to legal grounds i.e., that the decision is ultra vires. This would mean that there would be no opportunity to challenge the planning thinking behind the decision and its relationship to approved policy. Few members of the public have the financial resources or the skills to challenge Scottish Ministers through the courts. If people feel they have no hope of challenging Scottish Ministers, they will quickly write the process off as without meaning.
Scottish Environment LINK: As a tool, the NPF is welcome and offers significant opportunities to address important issues such as waste and energy. The inclusion of national developments appears to mean that Scottish Ministers will decide the need for these developments at a national level. Details of location and design will still be subject to some level of local decision-making. While there will be some level of consultation before the document is put to parliament we cannot identify any formal opportunity to object to or challenge the decisions it contains. The parliamentary scrutiny process has yet to be decided but the options before the parliament are limited and are unlikely to be able to include close scrutiny and robust testing of specific proposals. We believe the NPF should be subject to an 'Examination in Public' chaired by an independent professional who can hear and consider evidence and make recommendations. This has been done for other spatial strategies in the UK, for example the Spatial Development Strategy for London and the Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland and need be neither costly nor lengthy. The parliamentary debate after the White paper was announced indicated that a group would be set up to advise parliament of an appropriate process for scrutiny we would be keen to engage with this discussion.
Scottish Wildlife Trust:SWT is very concerned that the opportunity has not been taken to clarify and set out in detail the key criteria Ministers use when calling in planning applications and then judging whether a public enquiry is necessary. The Scottish Executive should also publish its full assessment of the case setting out the information on which its decision is based and the reasons to call or not call in a local authority decision. The current lack of transparency is a major source of public frustration which is a significant factor in calls for TPRA.
Private Individuals
Barham, Paul: How is democratic accountability to be safeguarded when the Executive can overrule the local authority on a Reporter's decision? How will "national purpose" be defined and how will local communities be able to resist the power of central government when the latter adopts this argument under the National developments process?
Sangster, Ann C Mrs: Removing these developments from the Public Inquiry process is contrary to the aim of providing a fair and open process. Large scale developments can have permanent detrimental effects on rural communities and landscapes. It is very important that those who may wish to make representations regarding these developments are not excluded from the planning process.
Smart, Douglas G: I object to the removal of nationally important developments from the Public Inquiry System. This is a serious centralisation of decision-making. We need to have Inquiries if there are objections to the need for developments. Who is to decide what is major and what is not?