Official Report 333KB pdf
GSM-R Communication Masts <br />(Planning Permission) (PE811)
We move on to the final agenda item, which is petition PE811, from Parents and Residents against Masts. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the permitted development rights that Network Rail enjoys in respect of the erection of 96ft-tall global system for mobile communications railway—GSM-R—masts in residential areas. The issue of permitted development rights is not being examined in the context of the committee's current consideration of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. However, the clerks suggest that there might be an opportunity to raise the issue with the minister at one of the two evidence-taking sessions that will take place next week. That would allow us to consider the issues that the petition raises. Do members have any comments on that proposal?
The briefing paper on the petition says that there is a current review of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992—the GDPO. Can you give me an idea of the timescale for that?
We do not know, but we can establish that and get back to you.
I think that it would also be useful for the petitioners to know that.
The letter from Malcolm Chisholm to Michael McMahon of 8 November 2005, which we have a copy of, says in the third paragraph:
We could also ask about the timetable at that point.
If we and the Executive are serious about the issues behind the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, which is about people having a right to get involved as early as possible in how decisions are made, it would be consistent to ensure that we address the issue the petition raises, not on the basis of whether people want a mast near their home, but on the basis that they should have a part in the decision-making process. That is not to say that permitted development rights are a bad thing in principle in all cases, but clearly people's strong feelings need to be addressed. It would be a positive move to have a future evidence session about the Executive working group's review of permitted development rights, albeit that it might take place after consideration of the bill is finished.
That concludes our comments. Are we agreed that we will conclude our specific consideration of the petition, but pursue the issues that it raises with the minister?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 12:37.