Planning Minister Kevin Stewart has said the significant increase in planning costs associated with the amendments made at the latest Parliamentary stage of the Planning (Scotland) Bill threaten the very aims of the legislation.
Mr Stewart was speaking as the Financial Memorandum for the Bill was published. The memorandum shows that proposed new duties introduced at stage 2 of the Parliamentary process could increase costs to planning authorities by up to £75 million and more than £400 million for business.
Mr Stewart said the Scottish Government is currently considering how best to remove unnecessary burdens at stage 3 of the process. He said: “Our aim in bringing forward this Bill was to streamline planning and create savings that could be redirected towards working with communities and developers to achieve real and positive change for our places.
“Throughout the stage 2 process I made it clear that it wasn’t simply amendments being added to the Bill, it was added costs, added bureaucracy. The Financial Memorandum paints a stark picture.
“As things currently stand, we risk losing the savings that could have been achieved through streamlining, and creating millions of pounds of new costs for planning authorities. It is difficult to see who benefits from that. As the Royal Town Planning Institute has said, the burden of new duties could see the system grind to a halt.
“Many MSPs have indicated their willingness to work constructively to rescue this Bill, and I am grateful to those who have already engaged with me. Returning this Bill to a shape that allows it to support inclusive growth will require co-operation.
“My aim remains as it always was – a Bill that supports the ability of the planning system to create quality places with the housing, infrastructure and investment that people need. I hope that others support that aim.”
More information on the Planning Bill is available here.
The Financial Memorandum is available here.
Campaigners who have been working to give communities a stronger voice in the planning process have expressed doubt that the planning bill will improve the lot of locals in what often seems an unequal, David and Goliath struggle with developers.
Back in January, Planning Democracy’s Clare Symonds said: “Despite the Government’s own research pointing to the failure of public engagement in planning, the initial Bill was distinctly underwhelming when it came to introducing more effective community engagement methods.
“Apart from Local Place Plans (about which we have some major reservations), there was nothing to encourage planners or developers to work collaboratively with the public or to listen to their views. In fact, anyone wanting to try and engage in the local development plan process following this legislation will find themselves having less opportunities than previously.
“The Government has belatedly introduced a consultation process at the beginning of the development planning process (now referred to as the ‘evidence gathering stage’). The fact that they failed to notice this omission until stage 2 demonstrates just how little they value public involvement.
“These amendments only take us back to where we are now before the review proposed wiping away one of the key opportunities for early community engagement in the Local Development Plan by deleting the Main Issues Report (MIR).
“The MIR has now been replaced by the ‘evidence gathering stage’, however, the Government’s amendment does little to suggest anything beyond the cursory consultation we already have. The one piece of good news is that the public will have 12 rather than 6 weeks to respond to the proposed Local Development Plan consultation but that might just mean people can devote more time to being ignored.
“Much of the detail on consultation requirements are left to secondary legislation, but the wording does not give any reason to believe we will see significant changes of approach. Local authorities are required to ‘consult’ rather than involve and ‘to have regard to the views expressed’ does not sound like it will lead to the more effective early engagement the governments rhetoric has suggested.
“This is a massive missed opportunity, the Bill could have set the tone for a much more progressive form of inclusive planning.”
24
0
20
