More turbines than we need?

I have just read here that:

...A Freedom of Information request by the Scottish Conservatives has revealed that 5,528 applications for turbines have been made to the country’s planning authorities over the last five years - the equivalent of about five a day.

And, 

According to the figures, only 790 applications were submitted in the seven years between 1999 and 2006, under the previous Labour administration, marking a seven-fold rise since Alex Salmond became First Minister in May 2007.



I have also just read here that:

...RWE npower renewables' attempts to overturn through judicial review the council’s supplementary planning document  (SPD) on the minimum distance requirements between wind turbines and homes will be given a court hearing, according to the firm.

The SDP (sic) says that wind turbines above 25 metres in height must be positioned at least 350 metres from residential dwellings, with the separation distance increasing to 1 kilometre for turbines higher than 100 metres.If the turbine is shorter than 25 meters, there is no minimum distance requirement, the document adds.

But RWE believe the SDP is contrary to both national guidance and the council’s own policies and has not been through the correct consultation and scrutiny processes.

In September, RWE, which has applications for two wind farms in the Milton Keynes area, threatened legal action if the council did not withdraw the SPD.

I am not sure what the situation is in Scotland re the distance of turbines from residences

The Future in store for CCs?

link

Community Councils Short-Life Working Group

In December 2011, the Scottish Government established a short-life working group to consider and recommend how best to build the resilience, capacity, and capability of Community Councils in the future.  

The Scottish Government would like to thank the Group for its final report and recommendations, which include consideration of internal operations; Community Councils’ engagement and relationships with local authorities; the wider public sector; the general public; and the communities that they strive to represent. 

The Group agreed that in the spirit of partnership working and in recognition of the key role local authorities play in supporting Community Councils, its report should be presented to both the Scottish Government and COSLA to consider collectively and ultimately decide which recommendations should be taken forward. The Group also agreed that consideration of its recommendations would benefit from wider discussion and engagement with a range of stakeholders with an interest in the sector which will inform and support the future policy development of Scotland's Community Councils.

Why can't the Planning Department realise where they are going wrong?

I read the report on 'engagement' featured in the agenda item below with some trepidation and I do not feel reassured after reading it.  

17. Service Presentation – Approach to Engagement
Taisbeanadh Seirbheis – Dòigh-obrach a thaobh Com-pàirteachas

There is circulated Report No. cpe-29-12 (35kb pdf) dated 26 November 2012 by the Director of Planning and Development outlining the methods, tools and techniques for community engagement used by the Planning and Development Service that accord with the Scottish Community Development Centre’s ten national standards for community engagement.  It highlights a number of current and emerging examples of where the Service is delivering effective community engagement.

The Committee is invited to note the methods of consultation used by the Planning and Development Service.

My main source of difficulty is that I cannot agree with the use of 'charrettes' as an effective form of public engagement.   Then there are all the issues featured on this blog where the public have been let down by the council.  I will not go on it is too depressing.

Election dissection

16. Elections

i. Highland Elections: Encouraging Participation and Increasing Turnout
Taghaidhean na Gàidhealtachd: A’ Brosnachadh Com-pàirteachas is Ag Àrdachadh Frithealadh

Following the report to the first meeting of this Committee on voter participation, there is circulated Report No. cpe-28-12 (40kb pdf) dated by the Chief Executive setting out a number of initiatives to attempt to encourage electors to participate in the electoral process and come out to vote on election day.

ii. Scottish Local Government Election May 2012: Electoral Commission Report

There is circulated Report No. cpe-28A-12 (30kb pdf) by the Chief Executive dated 27 November 2012 providing Members with information on the findings of the Electoral Commission’s report on the May 2012 Local Government Election.

The Committee is asked to note the Electoral Commission’s report and recommendations.

[Community Safety, Public Engagement and Equalities Committee  Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 10.30am.]

"National Community Planning Review"

18. National Community Planning Review

Ath-sgrùdadh Dealbhadh Coimhearsnachd Nàiseanta

There is circulated Report No. cpe-30-12 (69kb pdf) dated 27 November 2012 by the Head of Policy and Performance setting out the expected direction in new guidance for Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs) and Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs).  The guidance is now expected to be published in December 2012.

"Procedure for Consideration of Public Petitions"

This report invites Members to agree  a procedure to be adopted to allow for consideration of public petitions and to provide guidance of the principles to be included in the petitions procedure.


Background- Commitment Four of the Council’s Programme to Work Together to Empower 
our Communities is that ‘the Council will allow public petitions to be considered 
by the Council and relevant strategic committees.’ 


Petitions will not be (APTSec bold) accepted in respect of any of the following matters:-

a. Planning, licensing and other matters with their own procedures for 

objections and appeals e.g. Education Transport Appeals. 

b. Matters that are sub-judice or have the potential to involve the Council in 

litigation. 

c. Matters that may be referred to the Council’s complaints procedure or the 
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. 

d. Matters concerning individual elected Members or Council employees. 

e. Matters concerning employees’ terms and conditions or employment. 

f. Housing Allocations, in respect of a specific individual or individual(s).

g. A decision made by the Council or any of its Committees or Boards made 
within the previous six months. 

h. Matters that have been considered following submission of a similar petition 
in the previous twelve months. 

i. Matters designed to gain or reduce support for one or more political parties. 

j. Matters that could damage a person’s reputation or discriminate against 
them. 



[ Agenda item 19 - Community Safety, Public Engagement and Equalities CommitteeCouncil Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 10.30am.]

"Approach to Evaluating the Operation of the Scheme for Community Councils "

Approach to Evaluating the Operation of the Scheme for Community Councils

Dòigh-obrach a thaobh Measadh air Obrachadh Sgeama nan Comhairlean Coimhearsnachd

There is circulated Report No. cpe-32-12 (20kb pdf) dated 21 November 2012 by the Corporate Manager setting out an approach to evaluating the operation of the new Community Council Scheme.

The Committee is asked to agree:

i. the approach to evaluating the Community Council Scheme as outlined at section 2.2 of the report; and
ii. the additional consultation with Community Councils as outlined at section 2.4 of the report.

[Agenda Item 20 - Community Safety, Public Engagement and Equalities CommitteeCouncil Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 10.30am.]

"First Minister to deliver inaugural Shelter Scotland Lecture"

I have just received an email from 'Shelter Scotland'.  More details on their web page

Dear supporter,

The First Minister is going to deliver a lecture for us on Tuesday 27th November at 7.00pm on housing and social justice. The lecture is in memory of the late poet Edwin Morgan and marks the 2012 commitment to equalise the right of homeless people to permanent housing at the end of the year.

We’re really pleased Alex Salmond is giving the lecture and keen to hear what he has to say about the importance of housing and how we can deliver for the many people who are in housing need right now.
If you’d like to hear the speech you can follow our live stream on Tuesday 27th November at 7.00pm by visiting: www.shelter.org.uk/livestream

He’s also going to be answering questions after the lecture from the audience.  But we thought it was important that you as one of our supporters got the chance to ask him about homelessness and housing issues.  E-mail back your question and we’ll choose as many of the best ones as we can for our chair for the evening, Richard Holloway, to put to the First Minister - or submit your question on the night using the Social

Feed box on our live stream page.

And remember to tune in to our live stream to see if your question is asked.

Thanks for all your support.  And please take the time to get involved.  It’s important our politicians know what you think.

Graeme Brown,
Director, Shelter Scotland


Personally I think we should:

• be building more social rented housing instead of having to build and sell 75% of a development to get 25% 'affordable';
• 
  
• be encouraging Governments to find the means of getting land cheaply in order to build for need instead of Government bowing to the demands of the 'build for profit' brigade;
• 
  
•  be asking for the production and release of robust data to show just how many can afford to buy (with ready access to mortgage finance) as opposed to those who do not have the means but still need homes.

What do you think?

West link application

ePlanning

Planning » Application Summary

The public consultation period for this application has ended. We are no longer accepting comments from the public on this application.

• Details 
• Comments (10) 
• Constraints (0)
 
• Documents (20) 
• Related Items (1)

Summary Further Information Important Dates

Reference:	12/02050/SCOP
Alternative Reference:
Application Received:	17 May 2012
Address:	Land At Ness-Side West Of Dores Road Inverness
Proposal:	Inverness West Link Road.
Status:	Scoping Application Decision Issued
Appeal Status:
Appeal Decision:

There are 0 cases associated with this application.

"Inverness West Link Road - ground condition investigations under way."

From THC Press Item

Work is under way along the route of the Inverness West Link Road to establish ground conditions which will help inform the detailed design of the £27 million project.

The Highland Council has awarded a contract to Holequest Ltd of Galashiels to drill bore holes and trial pits along the line of the new route to establish full details of the exisiting ground conditions. Initial drilling has centred on the Canal Pitches, Queens Park and Torvean.

The information is vital to the detailed design work that is currently being progressed by Capita Symonds, who are assisting the Council’s Project Design Unit in providing detailed design, civil engineering and supporting services.

The ground investigation works are being carried out in two phases.  Phase 1 comprises trial pitting and boreholes and should be completed  in early January 2013 with Phase 2 to be undertaken in July 2013 and will see boreholes undertaken at the pier locations at the proposed new bridge over the River Ness.
Capita Symonds have made good progress with developing the road design.

The new road – situated at the western boundary of Inverness city – will link the Southern Distributor Road at Dores Road with the A82 Trunk Road at Torvean and will also include a new crossing of the River Ness and the Caledonian Canal.  Coupled with this, the outcomes of the recent charrette and land use strategy will be integrated with the revised road network in this area.  The new road will include allowances for enhancing the recreational facilities and providing improved cycling and walking infrastructure within the design area.

The commission for this stage of the project will take around 12 months and will allow the Council to move forward with publication of Orders and submission of a planning application.  When all consents are in place it is intended to construct the project in 2 Stages. The first stage will cross the River Ness and link the Dores Road Roundabout with the A82 Trunk Road and the second stage will provide for the tandem crossing of the Caledonian Canal at Torvean.

-ends-

"A9 show on the road..."

(Copied from THC web page 20/11/12)

Issued by Transport Scotland

Local communities are being urged to have their say on the Scottish Government’s ambitious A9 dualling programme at a forthcoming roadshow. The exhibitions also include information on the work going on to maintain the route, a study of the Keir Roundabout to Luncarty section of the A9 and plans for the upgrade of the Highland Main Line. They take place week commencing 3 and 10 December as follows:

• Pitlochry Town Hall, West Moulin Road, PH16 5EA - Monday 3rd, 12pm – 7pm.
• Inverness Town House, High Street, IV1 1JJ  - Tuesday 4th, 12pm – 7pm.
• Dewars Centre, Glover Street, Perth, PH2 0TH - Friday 7th, 12pm – 7pm.
• Birnam Arts and Conference Centre, Station Road, Birnam, PH8 0DS - Monday 10th, 10am – 3pm.
• Birnam Hotel, Perth Road, Birnam, PH8 0AA - Monday 10th, 6pm – 8pm.
• Cairngorm Hotel, Grampian Road, Aviemore, PH22 1PE - Tuesday 11th, 12pm – 7pm.
• Talla nan Ros (Hall of the Roses), King Street, Kingussie, PH21 1HW - Wednesday 12th, 12pm – 7pm.
• Bankfoot Church Centre, Tulliebelton Road, Bankfoot, PH1 4BS - Thursday 13th, 12pm – 7pm.

Copies of the exhibition panels and a A9 Dualling leaflet will be available from Monday 3 December at http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/a9dualling

Anyone wishing to comment should respond by 28 February 2013 toa9dualling@transportscotland.gsi.gov.uk

-ends-

At least when Cameron speaks he gets a reaction

Here is a post about a very interesting  johngeoghegan (Planning Magazine) article 'Reaction to Cameron's  'red tape- cutting' proposals')


Why does it seem to me that we in Scotland are so quiet when it comes to planning issues; just look at the response that The Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, has received after his comments:

....speaking at the annual CBI conference, announced measures aiming to speed up development and boost economic growth. Chief among these were reforms to the judicial review process, to, as he said, “dismantle some of the procedures that have been slowing us down”. This included reducing the time limit in which people can apply to challenge a decision, increasing fees for making judicial review applications, and cutting the number of opportunities to challenge a refusal of permission for a judicial review from four to two


Some of the comments from the article:

Planning solicitor Martin Goodall examines the judicial review (JR) statistics claim by Cameron is some detail on his blog. He says that “Cameron’s assertion is grossly misleading” and the JR system is not a “growth industry”, as the PM says. He says the overall increase in JR applications “has been solely attributable to immigration/asylum cases” – which are more than three-quarters of all JR applications.

Planning lawyer Angus Walker, a partner at Bircham Dyson Bell, takes a closer look at the JR proposals on his blog. Like many others, he says the number of planning-related JRs is actually quite small and does not appear to be rising.

Emily Williams, an associate at law firm DLA Piper has also warned that the JR proposals could conflict with European Union laws.

...the Coalition for Access to Justice for the Environment, an umbrella group that includes WWF-UK, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the RSPB. CAJE has condemned the move, warning that it could “destabilise democracy and undercut the UK’s obligations on public participation and access to environmental justice under EU and International environmental law”. Again, it points out that, among JRs, very few are challenges to major infrastructure projects, the subject of Cameron’s speech. It says the number of environmental JRs has “remained very small for many years”– in 2007 they just 20 cases out of a total of 1,981 applications in 2007.

In contrast, commercial property campaign group, the British Property Federation(BPF) has welcomed the announcement to reform the JR process that it says “has bogged down planning proposals vital to the British economy”. In a statement, the BPF said it has long campaigned for JR reform because it believes it causes delays in beginning development until the claim is heard, “thereby delaying or frustrating altogether the potential social and economic benefits arising from the development”.

Stuart Andrews, partner and planning specialist at law firm Eversheds, said:

“Anything that is proposed by the government to restrict opportunistic and deliberately obstructive judicial review challenges is greatly supported, particularly given the increasingly common tendency of objectors to pursue this strategy to delay perfectly acceptable and well thought out schemes.”

It seems to me that we are not so good at speaking out in Scotland

As always; what do you think?

How can THC want 'Expanded' A96 Corridor in NPF3 when there's no real sign of a contributions protocol

Compare and contrast the statements - which I have put into a table below and taken from the new DPS (Development Plan Scheme) - regarding two developer contributions protocols. 

The Planning Authority should have had the 'A96 Corridor Developer Contributions' guidance in place by now, why is it still dragging its heals on this? 

A special developer contributions protocol was an integral part of the 'A96 Corridor Growth Development Framework' when it was 'approved' and this special contributions protocol was to be in place at the adoption of the HwLDP.  

The following text was sent by me, as part of an email to councillors, in September 2012, to tie in with the consideration of the 'New town' Planning Application:

....The ‘A96 Growth Corridor Development Framework’ was placed before the PEDC on Wednesday 26 September 2007. BUT, what is particularly important is that which was stated within the Committee Report (dated 19 September 2007) with respect to developer contributions (I have underlined statements that I consider pertinent):

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/27AB1047-BF9A-45CF-A23B-4DDFF8D7842F/0/Item10Ped2007.pdf

5.  Developer Contribution Protocols

5.1 Section 8 of the Framework in Appendix 2 is fundamental to the success of development in the A96 Corridor.  It represents a strategic response to the need for key infrastructure and provides a blueprint for ensuring that investment happens in the right places at the right times.  The use of the protocols will be a prerequisite for development proposals which come forward.  The majority of development interests have broadly welcomed the approach taken by the Council, although there are a number of outstanding issues over the overall costs and the means of delivery.  These outstanding issues will be the basis of ongoing negotiation with the different development interests as they come forward and as the levels of public funding contributions become clearer.

5.2 Around £326m of strategic infrastructure investment (excluding water and sewerage) is required to facilitate development across the Corridor.  About 70% of this will be funded from the development process.  This will require public subsidy to meet regional investment requirements of £56m.   The remaining 30% would require public funding in areas of transport, schooling and landscape/park provision.  This means that the overall public/private split would require £151m (46%) of public investment and £175m (54%) of private contribution. This will be provided through the levels of contributions set out in Section 8 of the document. 

In line with the approach taken elsewhere in Inverness and throughout the country, developer contributions of between £7,000 and £11,000 per house have been established depending on the requirements for infrastructure within each development zone.  Other land uses will also be expected to contribute, again in line with the content of the protocols. Section 9 of the Framework identifies as a key action that there should be regular quarterly updates of the development funding protocol and delivery costings should be maintained.

5.3 The delivery of infrastructure through the protocols will be complex, but what has been established to date represents the first step in a welcome change to the way that the private and public sectors co-operate in the delivery of facilities or physical works which need to be provided to make better places.  In that context, Committee approval is sought for the developer contributions protocols.   

Well the HwLDP has been adopted and still not sign of this special protocol.

I have become tired and fed up of pointing out to the planning authority that this should be in place and the planning authority seems quite empowered to ignore my protestations.

The Planning Authority is continuing to promote the A96 Corridor and associated developments as 'National' through a third  National Planning Framework (The A96 Corridor only managed to be placed as a 'Spatial Perspective'  in the current NPF2).   Evidence of  private and public sector co-operation should be far more evident before inclusion and expansion of the A96 Corridor is considered through any future National Planning Framework.

Title of Supplementary Guidance	Purpose and Progress	Target Date
Developer Contributions	Provides guidance on how, when and why we negotiate contributions from development. This will bring together all of our existing guidance on developer contributions and our affordable housing supplementary guidance. We carried out consultation on this document Summer 2012.	A revised document will be reported to the PED Committee in January 2013.
A96 Corridor Developer Contributions	Sets out our procedure for securing contributions from developers towards long-term infrastructure within the A96 Corridor.	A draft document will be reported to the PED Committee in 2013. Public consultation will follow.

Inner Moray Firth Local Development Plan and associated guidance - progress to date

...Inner Moray Firth LDP – Following the publication of the MIR in March 2012, an extensive consultation period was undertaken from April to July which included almost 40 public events across the Inner Moray Firth area.  The Development Plans team is currently analysing the 900 individual responses which were received.'  


...The Proposed Plan will be published in March 2013.  The will be subject to a further consultation period before the finalised plan is 
presented for examination. 

...The Torvean, Ness-side and Charleston Development Brief will be prepared and issued for public consultation in early 2013.     



Extracts taken from this PEDC Committee Report, 'DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME' (...Members are asked to approve the contents of the Scheme and agree for its submission to the Plain English Campaign).

The '...report presents an updated version of the Development Plan Scheme (DPS) (attached as Appendix 1) which sets out  the Council’s programme for preparing and reviewing its Local Development Plans.  The DPS helps to provide certainty to the community and other stakeholders as to when each stage of the development planning process is being reached.  The updated version outlines the progress made so far, current status and next stages in the main projects since the DPS 2011 was approved in Nov 2011.'  

At last some 'Customer Feedback' - Planning Performance Framework

Click here for the Full details

"For the first time the planning system has a balanced scorecard approach to performance which will enable each local planning authority to demonstrate its achievements, successes, individuality  and personality. Speed of decision making still features as an important factor but it will be  set within a wider supporting context of quality, workloads, resources, organisation and outcomes achieved on the ground.  The Improvement plan for 2012/13 is an important element of the Framework and efforts are now being made to ensure the Service delivers on the actions contained within it."

"All Planning Authorities  in Scotland were asked to submit a Planning Performance Framework based on 2011/12 and including an Improvement Plan for the current year (2012/13).  This was submitted at the end of October 2012, although Committee are now being asked to agree the Improvement Plan set out within the document.  Any changes requested by Committee can be provided to Scottish Government as an update."


And what of the 'customer'?  Tucked away in the 'Supporting Evidence' section at end we have:


Customer Feedback

'Customer feedback has been received over the course of the last year across the range of
planning services, using a survey monkey link at the bottom of e-mails. There were 101
comments made through the online link over the course of the last year. More than 75% of
respondents rated the service they received from us as Good or Excellent...


16 % of respondents rated the service they received as Poor or Unacceptable. The main
reasons behind this were delays/length of planning process and a lack of consistency during
the planning process but other reasons given included a lack of communication/explanation,
that planners favour developers over the public, unhelpful staff, difficulties contacting the
planning department and issues with ePlanning/the Council website. The survey has
identified a number of potential improvements that can be addressed over the course of this
year...'