Transport and the Environment Committee, 04 Apr 2001
Meeting date: Wednesday, April 4, 2001
Official Report
115KB pdf
Public Petitions
Agenda item 3 is consideration of public petitions. We have two petitions to consider: PE295, from Mr A I Murray, on behalf of Silverknowes residents action group; and PE323, from Mr M R Watkin.
Both petitions relate to planning matters, of which members will be aware from reading them. A committee covering note, which deals with both petitions, has been circulated. The note provides background information on the petitions and suggests possible courses of action that are open to the committee.
I seek members' views on the petitions. Members will recall that the committee has taken the view previously that it should not become involved in the detail of specific planning applications. We continue to express views on third-party processes and appeals, but obviously there are also fairly significant legal matters that must be resolved. I offer that as a steer to the committee, but I am interested to hear members' views.
There are two issues to consider. The first is that petition PE295 alleges all sorts of procedural shortfalls in the City of Edinburgh Council's handling of the matter. There is, in such circumstances, a right of appeal to the Court of Session to have a decision reduced—I believe that that is the expression—which requires that the decision be taken again using proper procedures. I think that the petitioners have that right of appeal. That option may be timed out, however, although I have no idea whether that is the case.
There seems to be a clear difference of opinion between the objectors and the City of Edinburgh Council. We might agree with the petitioners, but it is not the committee's role to become involved in a planning decision. The Executive has a responsibility to monitor the ways in which decisions are made, but it is not clear from the petition whether the petition relates to development by a third party or a notice of intention to develop by the City of Edinburgh Council.
There might be a wider issue than merely the specifics of this case in relation to the effectiveness of notification procedures. However, with respect, I suggest that we should examine that in the round when we examine all such issues after the Crown properties appeal. We cannot take decisions on local planning matters, but we can consider broad law and practice and we will do so in due course. I suggest that we do what the officials recommend and advise the Public Petitions Committee of the correct position.
I would like to add something to that. If the Public Petitions Committee feels that it must continue to send us planning appeals, it could usefully carry out some background investigation and advise us whether the petition involves a planning application or a notice of intention to develop and whether the application or intention has been approved or appealed so that we know what the issues are. In this case, unless the Transport and the Environment Committee investigates the case for itself, we do not know what has happened procedurally. If we knew what procedure the petition was complaining about, that would add to our ability to draw general points from such petitions, which is all that we can do with them.
The officials have summed up the position and option A appears to be reasonable.
I support what Murray Tosh said. It is not in our remit to get involved in detailed discussion of individual cases.
A general problem has been flagged up for many years about the rights of developers and objectors and the way in which the whole system works. There are serious concerns about that and it would be appropriate for the committee to discuss those concerns at the right time, when the matter comes before us.
The committee cannot be a court of appeal for planning decisions. Many petitioners think that we can be. We must get the message across to those petitioners that there is no point in sending us their complaints about specific planning decisions because we cannot do anything about them. We can consider procedures in general and, in particular, how—and how widely—people are consulted before a decision is taken.
I think that those points have been made before.
Do you want to add anything, Bruce?
I am content with what I have heard.
There is a fair amount of agreement on how to deal with such matters and, in particular, the two petitions that are before us today. We will follow Murray Tosh's suggestion. We should advise the Public Petitions Committee that, when it forwards such petitions to us, we should have clarification of the status of applications, if they are applications.
Do members agree to option A, with Murray Tosh's addendum?
Members indicated agreement.
Should we deal separately and specifically with PE323? Our recommendations were based on PE295. We should state for the Official Report that the same points apply to PE323. It is not appropriate for the committee—and the committee has no remit—to consider the specific circumstances of the case.
Yes. That will be noted in the Official Report and notified to the petitioners.