Official Report 139KB pdf
Planning (Engagement and Consultation) (PE946)
Agenda item 4 is on petition PE946, which was submitted on behalf of the Old Musselburgh Club. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the process of local engagement and consultation in local planning issues. Clearly, the issue has been discussed extensively during our evidence taking on the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. We must be clear that we are unable to comment on the specific planning application to which the petition refers. As with similar petitions that the committee has considered, I invite members to agree to take into account the issues that are raised in the petition in our continued consideration of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill and, on that basis, to take no further action on the petition.
The petitioner, Mr Watt, is a constituent of mine and Musselburgh racecourse straddles the boundary between my constituency and that of Susan Deacon. The racecourse has been there for nigh on 200 years and there are proposals for major developments that are obviously important for the town. The petition highlights the strong views against the developments, although it is important to acknowledge the equally strong views in favour of them. They are a good example of developments that need to be considered within the framework that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill proposes. The bill should improve the way in which such controversial matters are handled. The application to which the petition refers has been called in by the Scottish Executive and will be considered soon at a planning inquiry—the sooner the better—which must be the right approach. I endorse the convener's recommendations. The relevant issues are covered in our consideration of the bill.
I, too, have a constituency interest, because part of the area is in the South of Scotland region. I know a lot about the area. I will not comment on the facts, but if the procedures that were followed were as detailed in the petition, I would have concerns. I presume that, after the planning inquiry, the petitioner will have the option of judicial review, if there is shown to be a conflict of interest, as narrated. I make no comment on the validity of the evidence, as it has not been tested, but I put on record the need for the issues that arise to be followed through. The petition shows the need to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the new Planning etc (Scotland) Bill in relation to consultation and community concerns. The case may be an argument for a third-party right of appeal in such circumstances, if it is proved that some of the decision makers had a conflict of interest, in that they have an interest in the development. I cannot comment on whether that is a fact.
That is a very serious allegation.
I am not making an allegation. Be fair—I prefaced my comments by saying, "If the claims were to be established." I have said throughout that the evidence has not been tested. However, if the claims are true, the case might be one in which a third-party right of appeal should have been available as an alternative to judicial review.
The petition simply calls on us to consider and debate issues that we have considered and debated in some detail and will continue to consider and debate. In those debates, some members will make the point that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will improve the situation in respect of controversial developments, although others may not accept that. It is worth acknowledging that the petition brings together several issues that arise repeatedly about public involvement and the protection of heritage and common-good land. There have been cases in which well organised but shoestring campaigns
You rightly point out that the issues that are raised in the petition have exercised the committee for a considerable time and will, no doubt, continue to exercise us in the months that lie ahead. Is the committee content to take the course of action that I outlined earlier, which is to close our consideration of the petition but reflect on the points that it raises in our consideration of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill?
Members indicated agreement.
We will consider the issues as part of our consideration of the bill but take no further action on the petition.
Meeting continued in private until 12:45.