What will the Reporter say!

Planning authorities are required to prepare local development plans for their area. These are to replace the previous local plans.

If representations have been made to the planning authority about the plan and any matters of dispute have not been resolved, the planning authority must submit the plan to the Scottish Ministers for examination. Ministers will appoint a person, or persons (normally Scottish Government Reporters), to carry out the examination. The arrangements for the examination will be made by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals.

On 4 May 2011 The Highland Council submitted the Proposed Highland wide Local Development Plan to Scottish Ministers for examination. The Scottish Ministers appointed Mr Trevor A Croft BSc Dip TRP ARSGS FRSA MRTPI, and Mr Malcolm Mahony BA(Hons) MRTPI on 18 May 2011 to carry out the examination of the Highland wide Local Development Plan 2010 in accordance with Section 19(3) of the amended Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997. Additional Reporters may be appointed to support the delivery of the report.

The Government Notice of the Appointment of the Reporters states that:

"...in order to comply with Section 19(7) of the Act, the examination will not commence until four weeks from the date of the appointment which is the 18 May 2011."

It seems that details of the progress of this Examination will only be available through the local authority web pages.

Who's Who in Government Planning

Just click here and here

GROS and National Archives of Scotland merge

From 1 April 2011, the General Register Office for Scotland merged with the National Archives of Scotland to become the National Records of Scotland (NRS).

The GROS website will remain active until it is replaced in due course by a new website for NRS

Could something similar happen in Scotland?

There is growing criticism of what is being regarded as the British Government's 'cash for permissions' measure.

RTPI president Richard Summers is quoted in an item from the latest 'Planning' daily e newsletter as saying:

"Ministers said very clearly barely twelve weeks ago that the New Homes Bonus would not be used to influence the granting of planning permission for development that would not normally be accepted.

"We are appalled to find now that the Government is trying to introduce such a fundamental and potentially damaging change to the planning system without any consultation at such a late stage in the passage of the Localism Bill.

Planning explains that these comments were in response to an amendment :

unveiled yesterday, which would change Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications for planning permission: general considerations). Section 70 details the grounds on which a planning application should be considered by local planning authorities, and the amendment adds a new consideration to make "any local finance considerations" material to an application.

The amendment was introduced following concern that the Government’s flagship New Homes Bonus policy, which aims to incentivise the building of new houses for local authorities, would be open to legal challenges if town halls made planning decisions based on financial incentives.

Could something similar happen in Scotland, with local authorities being asked to make development viability a material consideration? Could cash incentives be offered to Local Authorities?

For more information on Scottish Policy see here and here

How are MSPs elected and what do they do?

If you've ever wondered

How are MSPs elected and what do they do?

Then follow the link here

There is an interesting section on:

How do MSPs deal with issues raised by members of the public?

A constituent has the right to expect one of their MSPs to take on a case or query. However, it is up to the MSP to decide how best to deal with it.

MSPs may choose to deal with an issue in a number of ways, including:

(click on link above to read further)

Cash for Sprawl; undermining the role of planning?

Concerns are being expressed via various on line sources (I first came across this via my daily RTPI Planning newsletter) re Eric Pickles latest moves regarding the localism bill south of the border:

From the 24dash.com* web pages

A fundamental principle of the planning system will be undermined with long term and hugely damaging consequences for local communities and the environment, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has claimed.

Prompted by legal concerns first highlighted by CPRE, Communities Sectary Eric Pickles has taken the 'shocking and controversial step' of tabling an amendment to the Localism Bill that would allow councils to accept government money for saying ‘yes’ to development.

Legal advice obtained by CPRE last year suggested that by linking the outcome of planning decisions to un-ring fenced financial rewards, as outlined in the Government’s flagship housing scheme the ‘New Homes Bonus’ (NHB), any decision taken would be legally ‘tainted’ and open to question.

According to the campaign group, Pickles’ amendment, to be debated in the House of Commons next week, aims to skirt this legal constraint and reward local councils for making pro-growth decisions – regardless of whether development is in line with the local plan or environmentally sustainable.

Neil Sinden, Director of Policy for CPRE, says: “This amendment is a brazen attempt to legalise cash for sprawl. Many may have criticised the UK planning system in the past, but at least decisions were, on the whole, made on merit and not money.

“Councils are currently facing hard financial choices. In these circumstances it is very tempting to seek to fill shrinking coffers by permitting any development, regardless of its environmental impact or the views of local communities.

"But decisions based on financial benefit, rather than on whether proposed development is appropriate, could be hugely damaging to the environment and public confidence in planning.

"It also undermines the fundamental principle that planning decisions should be in the long term public interest, taking account of land use consequences.”

The Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) said the move was a 'major change' to the way local councils make planning decisions.

It said the last minute amendment to the Bill, which was not subject to any consultation, makes direct payments by Government a key consideration in deciding on planning applications.

Dr Hugh Ellis, TCPA Chief Planner said: “While the Government claims this is a minor change to reinforce the New Homes Bonus, in fact it means direct cash payments will become the first amongst equals of considerations for new development.

"This, along with other measures announced in the Budget, risks further undermining the role of planning which is to deliver sustainable development in the wider public interest.”

24dash.com* web site states:

24dash.com is the UK's most up-to-date Social Housing and Public Sector news website, combining national coverage from the Press Association and our team of professional journalists with press releases loaded direct by housing associations, local authorities, charities and other relevant organisations.

Urgent call to prevent loss of Environmental Legislation

This just arrived via email and it is strong stuff.
(I have been a a regular recipient of the CIWEM e newsletter for some years now.)

CIWEM describes itself as:

Working for the public benefit for a clean, green and sustainable world, CIWEM (The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) is the only independent, chartered professional body and registered charity with an integrated approach to environmental, social and cultural issues.

"Dear Contacts,

The Coalition Government, under its ‘Red Tape Challenge’ are asking people to tell them what ‘red tape’ is unnecessary and in response the Government will ‘reduce the burden of regulation’.

All our environmental regulation and legislation is individually listed on the red tape challenge website and is open to this process and unless you respond to the call for comments using the link below as a concerned individual, the protection of our environment is seriously under threat.

This email is a call to action for CIWEM members and contacts and we implore you to add your comments.

The Government’s view is ‘regulations and the inspections and bureaucracy that go with them have piled up and up….this has hurt business…’.

The CIWEM view is that we need to be working towards a clean, green and sustainable world and effective, strong environmental legislation is crucial rather than a hindrance to business that needs to be removed. As noted in a recent CIWEM press release, we are utterly opposed to ‘asset stripping the environment’.

Please use the link below and enter your comments in the environment section or under specific parts of the environment section. Please enter your comments as ‘I am commenting on my own behalf’ and CIWEM’s Policy Team will also send responses from CIWEM.

http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/environment

It is utterly essential that you respond and pass this email to others you know so they can comment.

Regards,

Justin Taberham
Director of Policy
CIWEM"

A82 Priority Upgrade

From Highland Council Press Release

The upgrade of a 10-mile stretch of the A82 between Tarbert and Inverarnan in Argyll has been identified as the key priority in the campaign to make the trunk link between Inverness and Glasgow safer.

A high level meeting of interested parties this week identified the urgent need to commission a strategic route alignment study at an estimated cost of £200,000.

This upgrade would see the road widened to 6 metres and includes edge strengthening to accommodate heavy goods vehicles/buses.

The meeting at the Bridge of Orchy Hotel on Monday was called and chaired by The Highland Council Leader, Councillor Michael Foxley. Also in attendance were senior representatives of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, Transport Scotland. Argyll & Bute Council and Hitrans .

Councillor Foxley said: “We had a very good meeting indeed and we have agreed a positive way forward to improve one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland.

“We have identified the tortuous stretch of road between Tarbert and Inverarnan as the priority for action by upgrading the existing line.

“I was delighted that the National Park Authority said they intend to withdraw their objection to the proposed improvements at Pulpit Rock if we take on board the environmental sensitivities involved in the design of the upgrade, including lay-bys, cycle tracks and structures. They are very keen to see an indicative line for them to identify very sensitive areas of shoreline or woodlands.

“Each agency has agreed to contribute funding towards the design contract.”

Councilllor Foxley hopes soon to meet the new Transport Minister about this project.

Councillor Brian Murphy, Vice-Chairman of the TEC Services Committee, said: “The meeting was a very positive one, and reaching agreement on the priority for upgrading this road is an important step forward. Hopefully, we will now see early progress in awarding a design contract.”

Loch Lomond Theme Park

Extract from 'Urban Realm'

Glaswegian entrepreneur Wayne Gardner-Young has set his sights on the bonnie banks for his latest venture, a £100m theme park.

Incorporating zip slides, treehouses and a spa the park is claimed, will work with the existing nature and setting of the famed National Park setting.

The attraction would be built alongside its own hotel, caravan park and holiday lodges.

Gardner-Young told the Herald: “Negotiations are continuing, so I don’t want to be exact. I will say it will be situated right on the shores of Loch Lomond and there is little doubt this will happen.”

Backing up this belief Young added: “I deal with planning boards all over Scotland, and it is amazing how proactive the planners at the park authority are. They are very business-minded and, if you ask me, a breath of fresh air. It is exactly what the area needs.” The project remains in the pre-planning application stage and could take five years to develop.

More here and here

A few pounds to spare?

From THC web pages - (thanks to APT regular for link)

Extract

All Development Plans are available for purchase. The price of each plan and how to order is detailed below.

All prices are inclusive of postage unless otherwise stated.

The Highland Structure Plan (March 2001)

• printed copy - £20
• CD-ROM (pdf) - free

Local Plans

Charges are applicable only to Deposit Draft plans and all versions thereafter.

• Badenoch and Strathspey Local Plan (September 1997)
  • printed copy - £15
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free
• Caithness Local Plan (September 2002)
  • printed copy - £15
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free
• Inverness Local Plan (March 2006)
  • printed copy - £20
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free
• Nairnshire Local Plan (December 2000)
  • printed copy - £15
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free
• Ross & Cromarty East Local Plan (February 2007)
  • printed copy - £40
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free
• Sutherland Local Plan (June 2010)
  • printed copy - £40
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free
• South & East Sutherland Local Plan (May 2000)
  • printed copy - £15
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free
• West Highland and Islands (covering Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh)
  (September 2010)
  • printed copy - £60 + £20 postage & packing
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free
• Wester Ross Local Plan (June 2006)
  • printed copy - £40
  • CD-ROM (pdf) - free

Inverness Airport Business Park; press interest continues but what are the facts?

Press interest in the IABP, here are a few facts so you can come to your own opinion.

IABP - what the Highland Council has stated:

Fact 1

Minutes of Meeting of the Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey Planning Applications Committee commenced at 10 am on site at Inverness Airport, Dalcross and thereafter continued in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Tuesday 19 January 2010 at 11.15 am.

(Extract from item 3)

The Principal Planner, Mr K McCorquodale, began by drawing members attention to paragraph 7.49 of the report which stated that the Council did not have a financial interest in the development. He explained that the Council had lent the applicant £1.25 million to assist with building the Airport Link Road, a project jointly funded by the applicant, HIE, the Council and substantial EU funds. This loan, and the arrangements for its repayment, would, however be unaffected by the Committee’s decision on the planning application for the business park, be it to grant or to refuse permission. The Council accordingly had no financial interest in the application.

Fact 2

08/00215/OUTIN – BUSINESS PARK AT INVERNESS AIRPORT
Report by Head of Planning and Building Standards

7.49 For the avoidance of doubt it is also important to state that the Council does not have a financial interest in this application.

4.2 The Council received nine timeous objections to the application...

4.1 The application was advertised under Section 34 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 on 28 March 2008, with a consultation period of 28 days. Subsequently it was advertised as a departure to the adopted Inverness Local Plan on 23 May 2008 with a consultation period of 21 days.

7.4 The application was advertised as a departure to the Development Plan. This was undertaken because the application sets out a fifty year development framework which is in excess of the 5 – 10 year time horizon of the adopted Inverness Local Plan. The boundaries of the site incorporated land highlighted for future expansion.

Fact 3

PLANNING ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 19 January 2011
INVERNESS AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK – ANNUAL REPORT
Report by Director of Planning and Development (PED11/11)

Background

The Inverness Airport Business Park (IABP) Limited company was established in May 2005 and is a joint venture between Highlands and Islands Airports Limited, Moray Estates and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Inverness Airport Business Park Ltd issued Loan Stock of £1.175m to the Council to reflect the cost incurred by the Council in building the new access road to the airport from the A96. The repayment of this Loan Stock will allow the Council to recover its costs in constructing the road, albeit over a period of time. The Council is currently represented on Inverness Airport Business Park Ltd. Board of Directors by Councillor David Henderson, with the Director of Planning and Development attending in an advisory capacity. This provides the Council with the ability to closely monitor the financial situation of the IABP Ltd.

Under the Loan Stock Agreement, Inverness Airport Business Park Ltd. is required to repay 50% of the loan stock to the Council in May 2010 and the remaining 50% in May 2015. However, the Loan Stock Agreement gives the company an option to defer payments if they believe the repayment would have a prejudicial impact on their business proposals for the Business Park. In this regard the company opted to defer the first repayment of £587.5k due to be received by the Council in May 2010. The Council was notified of the deferment in accordance with the terms of the Loan Stock Agreement. The Finance Service undertook a review of the company’s draft Annual Accounts for 2008/09 and 2009/10 which confirmed that if repayment had been made in May 2010 it would have had a prejudicial effect on the business proposals.

Under the deferment arrangements, the 2010 repayment now becomes payable to the Council in May 2015 unless independent reviews of the Company’s accounts indicate the deferred amount can be paid earlier. The company has no option but to repay the loan stock if these independent reviews provide an opinion that the repayment can be made without prejudicing the development.

Fact 4

What the Scottish Government states:

Planning Advice Notes provide advice and information on technical planning matters. As part of the modernisation of the planning system, the intention to scale back the amount of planning advice issued by the Government was announced in October 2008. The Planning Advice Note series is being retained but some PANs will be withdrawn and others will be merged and updated. This will result in an overall reduction in the number of PANs and an increased focus on technical planning matters.

PAN 82 Local Authority Interest Developments

It is almost inevitable that conflicts of interests can sometimes be perceived to arise when a planning authority is considering future development. That is simply a normal consequence of being a local authority with a range of duties and responsibilities, and having been elected to act in the best interests of their communities. The key to resolving any possible or perceived conflict of interests in future development comes down to ensuring that a full, thorough and open planning assessment is carried out in the same way as it would be for any other private development proposal.

There are different ways in which local authorities might have an “interest” in a
development, and therefore stand to benefit in some way from development
proceeding. For example:

• Where the council, as well as being the planning authority, is also the
developer.1
• Where the council is the landowner, and so would gain a capital receipt for
sale or lease of its land.
• Where the authority is working in partnership with other bodies.
• Where the authority is likely, in future, to enter into a contract or be a future
operator in relation to the development.
• Where the developer is financially supported or sponsored by the local
authority.

The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007 (see Scottish Executive Development Department Planning Circular 5/2007) sets out circumstances in which planning authorities must notify Scottish Ministers where they intend to grant planning permission. This allows Scottish Ministers to consider whether there are reasons for them to intervene by calling in planning applications for their own determination. In relation to local authority interest developments, before granting consent planning authorities must notify Ministers where the proposed development:

• would be contrary to the development plan for the area; or

• has been the subject of a substantial body of objections.

“Contrary to the development plan for the area”

In many cases, deciding whether or not a proposed development is in accordance with the plan will be straightforward. It will clearly be out of accord with the plan if the development conflicts with a specific land allocation or designation. But it might not be so certain where a proposal is being assessed against more general or criteria-based policies, or where it is actively supported by some policies of the development plan but perhaps does not sit perfectly
with other policies.

The planning authority is best placed to balance the range of policies and proposals and decide whether a proposal does or does not accord with the development plan, and is obliged to do so as part of its assessment of any planning application. In terms of this criterion for notifying Ministers, the only judgement to be made is whether or not the proposal constitutes a departure from the development plan; it should not be influenced by material considerations.

Yatterbox: what is your MP saying?

Just click here for Yatterbox


From their web site:

About Yatterbox

• Following all content from Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, RSS feeds, Hansard and obtaining data from the API of The Guardian.
• Building a historical record of the live social media output of all Members of Parliament.
• Allowing users to interact and re-distribute content through their own social networks.

After several months of hard work, the Yatterbox team are delighted to present you with Yatterbox.co.uk, a website which brings together all the social media output of all UK Members of Parliament.

The site is intended to make Politics in the United Kingdom more accessible and accountable to members of the public and does this by making everything said online by important UK politicians visible in a single place.

Yatterbox.co.uk was first envisioned by staff and students at the University of York during the 2010 UK General Election.

Yatterbox.co.uk is expanding its features in the near future. Stay tuned for further updates and for more information contact us via info@yatterbox.com

Influencing decisions

Extract:

8 The term ‘consultation’ is used to mean the dynamic process of dialogue between individuals or groups, based on a genuine exchange of views and, normally, with the objective of influencing decisions, policies or programmes of action. The terms ‘engagement’ and ‘involvement’ are generally interchangeable and are taken to mean the establishment of effective relationships with individuals or groups. Participation is everything that enables people to influence the decisions and get involved in the actions that affect their lives. In the context of this document engagement is, in effect, giving people a genuine opportunity to have a say on a development plan or proposal which affects them; listening to what they say and reaching a decision in an open and transparent way taking account of all views expressed.


89 Planning authorities have a role in providing training for their Community Councils, other community groups and individuals to improve understanding of and participation in the planning system. In addition, the Scottish Government provides core funding to Planning Aid for Scotland, an independent voluntary organisation, which provides training and advice on planning matters to individuals and groups across Scotland.

Click here for the rest

Back to Basics: to grant or to refuse planning permission

Extract:

Development management (formerly called development control) is the term used for the process of deciding whether to grant or refuse planning permission and other related consents. Planning authorities normally deal with applications for planning permission. Scottish Ministers become involved in a very small minority of cases, but only do so only where it involves a matter of genuine national interest.The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that decisions on planning applications should be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations should be related to the development and use of land. More information on material considerations is provided in Annex A of Circular 4/2009 Development Management Procedures.

MORE INFO Here

Back to basics; a very simple guide to the planning system

For a very straighforward guide to the Planning System in Scotland please click here