Communities Committee, 12 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Official Report 301KB pdf

---

Proposed Planning Bill (Pre-legislative Scrutiny)

Item 3 concerns the proposed planning bill. The committee is invited to consider whether it wants to undertake pre-legislative civic participation events to provide people with an interest in the planning system with an opportunity to express their views on the Executive's proposals. It is proposed that three separate events should be arranged to cover key areas of interest: a chamber event for community groups; an event for planning professionals; and an event for other business interests.

I would be interested to know what committee members think about the proposal. Obviously, there will be scope to discuss who should be invited, the format of the events and so on, so that we get them right. For now, I seek an agreement in principle, so that the clerks can go away and do some work on the matter. We need a general steer that the committee is happy with the proposal for three separate meetings with the groups that have been identified. The proposals in paper COM/S2/05/10/6 cover all the stakeholders. It is important that they get an opportunity to have their say.

I agree in principle. My only comment is that there is huge interest from civic Scotland and I wonder whether one meeting will be enough. Perhaps we should hold a meeting here to cover the central belt and find another venue elsewhere in Scotland so that those in the north, for example, will feel able to come and take part. That might be worth while.

There is merit in Linda Fabiani's suggestion. I am enthusiastic about bringing people into the chamber. It sends out exactly the right signal, and shows that of the three groups, individuals and community groups are an important part of the picture. Under the existing planning system, they rightly feel that they are not regarded as playing an important part.

I do not want to get into specific discussions about who should be invited, but I am concerned about the session suggested in paragraph 6 b). The three constituencies are community groups, planning professionals and developers. Session b) seems to be about including the private sector, but it seems to me that it belongs in the session described in paragraph c). The only reason why the private sector has planning professionals working for it is that it has the resources to employ them. Community groups would like to have planning professionals working for them, but they do not have the resources. I would be concerned if developers' interests were expressed in two out of the three sessions and community interests were expressed in only one. I suggest that session b) should be about planning authorities rather than about planning professionals, including the private sector.

Patrick Harvie raises one of the points that I wanted to raise, on ensuring the inclusion of individuals and community councils.

When do we expect the bill to be introduced? Also, the sessions are information-gathering forums and I do not want them to turn into rammies. I know what it is like in the Highlands with the wind farms—believe me, it is like world war three. I do not want people to turn up and find an opportunity to sit and argue with the planning professionals.

To respond to Mary Scanlon and Patrick Harvie, it is important that the sessions are for evidence gathering. They are about engaging with the stakeholders, particularly those who think that the system has not engaged with them effectively in the past. One of the reasons for having three distinct events is to avoid having representatives of community groups and civic Scotland, who are rightly concerned and have a strong point of view to put across, arguing with the planning authorities. We want to hear from community groups about their experiences and we want to give those issues the priority and consideration that they deserve. We will meet the planning professionals separately so that we avoid the confrontation that might occur.

We need to hear from individuals and community groups and take on board the issues that they raise, rather than provide an opportunity for confrontation—there are other opportunities for that.

No doubt confrontation and conflict will happen at certain points. I am conscious that Donald Gorrie wants to comment, but first I will respond to Patrick Harvie. The point about professionals is not so much about having developers represented. It is about having people who work in the planning process represented, both those who work for local authorities and those who are members of professional bodies and work in the field.

Obviously, there will be a further discussion among committee members to ensure that they are satisfied with the remit of all the events. Any concerns can be flagged.

The basic proposition is good. I agree with the convener's last point. Session b) could include planning professionals who work for councils and planning professionals who advise pressure groups on the anti-development side of the proposition, as well as those who advise developers. I am sure that all of us have had meetings with planning professionals who advise environmental groups. I am sure that they could contribute usefully to the event and make it better balanced.

On event c), I have had discussions with quite civilised developers who have good methods of consulting people in advance, trying to get agreement and so on. It is important that such developers are involved and that we do not get only the Confederation of British Industry's sort of thinking, which is that this is the third world war and Scotland's economy will collapse if we move at all in this area. To put my cards on the table, I believe that we want a meeting at which the more civilised members do not feel hauden doon and fail to have their say. It would be a pity if event c) could be summarised by the phrase "Over my dead body," because the issue is much more complicated than that.

Do we leave it to the clerk to decide who is civilised?

The issue is ensuring that all the events are representative of the wide range of interests within each interest group.

They should include information gathering. That is the important point.

Are we looking for suggestions for the events? Like Donald, I know a civilised developer. I am quite willing to put the name forward.

I am sure that the clerks will welcome any suggestions that you have. However, this is the preliminary stage of our consideration of the matter. The clerks needed an indication of whether members agreed in principle with what is suggested. They will take all members' comments on board.

Mary Scanlon may make a further comment, as long as it not on something that she has already said.

It is not something that I have already said. I reiterate my plea that one of the events could possibly be held outside Edinburgh, preferably in the Highlands, of course.

Or Shetland.

Or Caldercruix.

You are welcome to come at any time to Caldercruix, where there is a fine model of community participation. However, I am not sure that the community centre is big enough to hold all the people who might want to participate.

We will certainly consider the suggestion. The intention was that the event for civic Scotland would take place in the Parliament chamber, to send a signal to civic Scotland about the Parliament being not just for politicians but for civic Scotland as well. I understand members' desire to be seen outside the Parliament, but there is also an issue about ensuring that civic Scotland feels that it is able to participate in the work that we do in the Parliament. On this occasion, that might involve opening up the chamber to civic Scotland and allowing it to participate in the event. That does not mean that we cannot consider other events taking place outside the Parliament.

To return to my previous point, because of the level of interest in civic Scotland, I am concerned that one event, even in the chamber, might not be enough. Perhaps we could go ahead with the three events and then schedule another day to meet two or three of the different groups.

We must make the process manageable. We have an agreement in principle. Let us allow the clerks to work on the matter and then we can discuss it further.

The events will have to be well chaired, but that is not a problem.

Sook!

Thank you for your praise, Donald.

Meeting closed at 12:29.