IT saddened me to read the letters about planning (July 15) and online comments responding to them from supporters of independence. With little knowledge of the planning system the authors jump on their keyboards to criticise the SNP, the Scottish Government and local authorities. Remember the go-to tactic of perfidious Albion is divide and conquer, and I fear this sort of ill-informed comment might provide more ammunition for their mainstream and social media campaigns.
READ MORE: Letters: SNP joined forces with the Tories to push Planning Bill through
As a chartered architect for 35 years I understand the vagaries of our complicated planning system. There has never been a third-party right of appeal of planning decisions and for good reason. If there were, virtually all applications would go to appeal, with any objector lodging an appeal at no cost to themselves. Remember virtually all applications attract a number of objectors. This would overload the system and cost the state possibly billions. Where would the Scottish Government find hundreds of highly qualified reporters as well as thousands of qualified planners required by the local authorities? It would also add some six months-plus to the already lengthy time taken to gain planning permission.
Local communities and individuals already have two mechanisms for inputting their representations in the planning process. First, at regular intervals the local authorities prepare their draft Local Development Plan (LDP) and put it out to the public for comment. Once these comments have been considered and taken on board, or rejected, the LDP is sent to the Scottish Government for their OK, and only then is it adopted as policy by a vote by the elected councillors. This is then considered to be the will of the people against which applications are determined. Second, any individual or organisation can lodge an objection to any planning application, and the planning officers must consider whether it is relevant against the LDP.
By way of explanation I would like to relate an example. I designed a new-build house in an established desirable suburb of a Scottish town. It had a balcony to the rear, which due to the 3m boundary hedge did not overlook any neighbours. It also had a glazed cupula on the roof over the stairwell. The local residents put in many objections for, in my view, NIMBY-ist reasons. Two were particularly far-fetched. They objected on the grounds that they might hear my clients “chinking their G&Ts” while on the balcony and that someone in the house could shine a laser pen through the cupula at low-flying military jets, both activities that could be done in any garden. If there were a third-party right of appeal I am certain they would have used it, costing my client months and tens of thousands of pounds.
I fear that frustration with the apparent lack of progress towards independence is making supporters more critical of the SNP of late. Certainly in my branch there is more criticism of the party of late. I have been a supporter since I canvassed with my dad for Winnie Ewing in Moray in 1974. My view is, if you want to change the SNP’s policies, stop the griping in the mainstream and social media, get involved with the party, attend branch meetings, put forward resolutions and send delegates to conferences etc. Talking down the SNP in the papers is the job of the London press.
Gordon Darge
Yes Blairgowrie and Rattray
IN the case of the Planning Bill the Tories have supported the Scottish Government. It is not unusual for one of the Unionist parties to oppose or abstain in order to be able to publicly link the SNP with another Unionist party, even when they are in favour of the legislation. In this instance the changes in the planning process were probably mainly a result of the decade of delays and escalation of the cost of the Aberdeen bypass. That particular campaign showed that something needed to be done to limit the unending appeals that took place under the existing procedure.
John Jamieson
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel