Skip to main content

Language: English / GĂ idhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Local Government and Regeneration Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012


Contents


Petition


Planning Circular 3/2009 (PE1320)

The Convener

We will now consider the evidence received by the committee on PE1320. Members will recall that, on 14 September last year, we heard oral evidence from the Scottish Government’s chief planner, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland. At a second evidence session on 23 November, we heard oral evidence from the petitioner, Douglas McKenzie, of Communities Against Airfield Open Cast. Both those evidence sessions were enlightening, revealing a lot of useful information. Members have received a briefing paper, LGR/S4/12/1/5, and one of its suggestions is that we should not lose the evidence that we have heard.

Are we going to decide today what to do with the petition?

Yes. The briefing paper contains some suggestions.

Margaret Mitchell

The petition describes unique circumstances, so I would be in favour of writing to the Minister for Local Government and Planning to bring the issue to his attention. The petitioner wishes to give a neighbouring authority the same statutory rights to be a consultee as a Government agency. The minister should be aware of any such situation, rather than things being allowed to happen on an ad hoc basis; the minister could then decide whether or not to do anything further. That would increase transparency and accountability, which would be all to the good.

If the committee intended to consider planning legislation in future, suggestion (b) in our briefing paper is that we should keep in mind the situation raised by the petition. I am in favour of both suggestions (a) and (b).

I agree with that.

The Convener

Do members agree that we should write to the Minister for Local Government and Planning to bring to his attention the evidence taken by the committee on PE1320 at our meetings on 14 September and 23 November 2011?

Members indicated agreement.

The second suggestion is that the committee ensures that we note the evidence taken, so that, if need be, we can make use of it in future work. We should ensure that the evidence is not lost to us.

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, do we agree to close the petition?

Should we not wait for a reply from the minister before we close the petition?

We are not writing to ask him questions; we are simply writing to bring points to his attention. I therefore suggest that we close the petition now.

I am in favour of keeping it open until we receive a reply. Otherwise, it will have been closed by default.

Okay, we have two different views. I suggest that we close the petition today and Margaret suggests that we keep it open until we receive a reply. Are there any other views?

I am content to support your view, convener. Sorry, Margaret.

The question is, that PE1320 be closed. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)

McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)

Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)

Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)

Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)

Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (SNP)

Against

Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

PE1320 is now closed. Okay, Margaret?

Yes.

Thank you. I record my thanks to Mr McKenzie for his engagement with this committee and with the previous Public Petitions Committee.