THE Scottish Government must ‘lance the boil’ of Scotland’s unjust and unfair planning system, the country’s foremost historian Sir Tom Devine states in an exclusive article for The National today.
READ MORE: Tom Devine: Ministers must end Scotland's planning scandal
Devine, Profess Emeritus of History at Edinburgh University, has penned a hard hitting opinion piece which contends the current planning system is not protecting the public interest and favours developers who have an automatic right of appeal.
His comments come on the day when the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government Committee consider the Planning Bill going through Holyrood at the moment.
Citing two recent cases – the controversial housing development at Culloden and the plan for 135 houses at Jellyhill in Bishopbriggs – Devine slates the decisions given in favour of both developments on appeal by Government-appointed Reporters.
They both brought protests with a petition against the Culloden plan gaining over 100,000 signatures.
Devine writes: “Personally I am satisfied that any accusations of NIMBYISM cannot be levelled at either of these two opposition groups. Having read the relevant documentation I was much more convinced by the evidence-based arguments of the protestors than the ‘judgements’ and ‘opinions’ of the Reporters.”
He continues: “Few people in Scotland ever have to confront Scotland’s unjust planning laws. When they do, however, they soon realise that the dice is firmly loaded in favour of big business and house builders with economic muscle.”
Jellyhill and Culloden, he says, “are merely the tip of a concealed iceberg: a colossal imbalance in the process weighted against the democratic rights of people and communities.”
He adds: “These examples beg the question of how unpopular, controversial developments gain permission in an age when, outwardly at least, we aspire to a publicly inclusive system of planning where communities can influence decision-making?
“If we accept in principle the need for more participatory forms of democracy in which ordinary people have rights to be engaged rather than simply voting for representatives to make decisions on their behalf, why do people’s voices and concerns still seem to be routinely ignored? The harsh reality of our allegedly democratic system of planning is that most people are scandalously excluded from the process of decision making. Meaningful engagement by citizens is nothing other than a myth.”
Devine goes on: “Scandalously, the Scottish Government refuses to even acknowledge that this is a problem which needs to be addressed; hence no action has been taken to respond to repeated criticisms of the lack of access to fairness and justice for aggrieved local communities.
“The current ongoing discussions in Holyrood on a revised Planning Bill presents the Government with a real opportunity to lance this boil.
“Scotland is in dire need of a planning system that enables people to come together to debate how places should change or remain undisturbed. Communities require real powers to make sure that publicly acceptable development is agreed and that the voice of the people is not only heard but has real significance as one of the parties involved in any outcomes.
“No one is suggesting that local communities have a right to veto, only that they be involved in the relevant processes rather than being effectively excluded.
“There is no longer any valid reason to accept a unique case for special privileges for developers by allowing them the right of appeal when ordinary citizens have no such rights. It is about time that the Scottish Government acted on behalf of the people of Scotland.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Our planning system is inclusive, giving people and communities the opportunity to express their views on proposed developments.
“The current Planning Bill builds on that by giving a new opportunity for communities to produce their own local plans, which authorities must take into account. The ability for an applicant to appeal also remains a vital and necessary part of our planning system.
“In terms of the Culloden development, the independent reporter considered a wide range of evidence, and concluded that the proposed housing would not have an adverse impact on the integrity or significance of this nationally important battlefield. The planning consent was subject to a number of conditions, and the decision was final, providing no opportunity for Ministers to revisit it.”
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 here