BBC and STV News reported yesterday that:
"Papers have been lodged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh which could prevent a new coal-fired power station being built in Ayrshire.
Campaigners are asking for a judicial review of the plans for the power station at Hunterston."
and,
"A legal challenge against the Scottish Government has been launched by campaign group ‘Communities Opposed To New Coal At Hunterston’, who oppose plans for a new coal-fired power station in Largs, North Ayrshire.
The group is campaigning for a judicial review on the way planning permission is granted.
They are also challenging the inclusion of the station on Scotland's National Planning Framework - a list of 14 projects considered crucial to the country's infrastructure and development - which they said took place after a consultation had ended."
Responding on STV:
"A spokesman for the Scottish Government insisted that the National Planning Framework has been subject to wide-ranging consultation.
“It is vital that communities are able to have their say on proposed developments and reforms to the planning system have increased participation in the decision-making process.
“Projects designated as national developments in the NPF will still require planning permission or equivalent consents.
“The public will be able to have their say on matters such as siting, design and the minimisation and mitigation of potential environmental effects as part of the development management process, including any public inquiry."
There were also items in The Herald and The Scotsman.
APTs experience of the NPF consultation was not as positive as it could have been, and the 'wide ranging consultation' still left many, many people across Highland and indeed, I suspect, Scotland completely unaware of the existence or implications of this National Planning document.
Having a say is not the same as being able to influence the decision making process and the inclusion of the power station in the National document (as one of 12 National Developments) means that, 'NEED', has been established as a principle so as for as the Planning System is concerned, a power station there will be!
However, as the spokesman's final paragraph indicates, the public can comment on,
"siting, design and the minimisation and mitigation of potential environmental effects"
How is that for giving the public more say in the planning system?
It would seem that the public is once again being presented with a fait accompli. It appears that the deal is done - there will be a power station, since the “need” has been demonstrated. The remaining debate concerns the site, design and mitigation criteria. To present the public with this outcome is not consultation since the public have not been able to engage in the decision making process – there has been no participation or evidence that the public could have meaningfully participated. Is it therefore surprising that the majority of people feel depressed and disenfranchised when they attempt to engage with the planning system – a system which has supposedly been redesigned to allow the public its voice and the ability to make a meaningful contribution to the debate?
ReplyDeleteI am really hopeful for the success of the Hunterston challenge, but the Trump fiasco is getting people around the country talking. Whether you agree with the decision to approve the golf course or not, it's the implications of how the system is being made to work if you have the money. There is concern and anger from those that have had experiences with the Planning system that the LA can go down the route of compulsory purchase of your home for the furtherance of profit for a developer as opposed to a public service development like roads, hospitals etc.
ReplyDelete