Download Response - Planning Democracy

40 Craighouse Avenue
Edinburgh EH10 5LN
1 Dec 2015
Response to Scottish Government Planning Review Consultation
The comments of Alex Neil appear to send a signal that this review will result in the loosening of
planning, potentially mirroring England under the Conservative Westminster Government. This would
be disappointing. We'd like to see a focus on fairness in the system, good planning and placemaking
and how to deliver good built affordable homes for Scotland.
Development Plans
There's a general assumption in the questionnaire that speeding up the delivery of planning consents
equals more built homes. This isn't the case and it's important to uncouple these notions if you want
to deliver more affordable homes.
Rather than loosening off Local Plans, strengthening and adhering to them more closely would
encourage applications in areas zoned for development, rather than encouraging developers to focus
on speculative applications or getting easy land value rises by pushing for consents on protected land
instead.
In Edinburgh, we've seen a concentration on hotels, grade-A offices, student accommodation and
luxury apartments in the city centre - to the detriment of affordable homes which could benefit from
existing infrastructure. Stronger Local Development plans would add certainty, allow for infrastructure
needs and increase speed in the system by producing fewer appeals from developers.
Speed of the system
We recognise the Scottish Government's impetus to deliver more housing, but the focus should be on
how to deliver affordable housing . There's a simplistic idea advocated by developers' lobbyists that
speeding up the system and giving more planning consents is the answer to tackling housing need: it
is not.
There's no lack of consents granted to developers. Nor is there a lack of already-consented land. A lot
of this land remains undeveloped or land-banked. Some companies boast and advertise their land
speculation portfolios, which are bought and sold on the market. Giving yet more consents and
speeding up the time in which consents are given does nothing to combat this very major problem.
Indeed, giving more consents potentially slows down and discourages the building of affordable
housing and the development of brownfield sites by rewarding developers who focus on land
speculation or those who hold out for consents on protected sites for luxury housing for the super rich
instead. This problem is acute in Edinburgh and evidenced by the numerous brownfield sites that
remain undeveloped such as the Granton waterfront.
Our suggestions to speed up the system and deliver more affordable housing are:
That consents have a strict time limit - encouraging developers to build or sell on to someone
who will within a certain timeframe, rather than land-banking.
Stop the practise of developers to "activating" old or inappropriate consents in perpetuity
by merely digging a trench thereby increasing land value and encouraging land-banking. At
Craighouse a consent for a university building was "activated" in perpetuity after the university
had left and there was no longer any justification, need or use for such a building.
Introduce a land value tax - to discourage land-banking and land value speculation by large or
offshore companies with no real interest in timely development or the good of local
communities.
Introduce Equal Right of Appeal for Communities - to makes sure developers and Councils
follow proper process and to create balance in the system. The arguments against are without
foundation. The right can be brought in for communities, rather than individuals to prevent
abuse by rival developers. Currently, the system is grotesquely unfair requiring individuals to
take on liability of behalf of their communities - risking their homes and livelihoods to the tune
of hundreds of thousands of pounds, in order to challenge undue process .
Alternatively, Remove Developers' Right of Appeal. The system is slowed up by endless
appeals by developers. The threat of the developers appealing makes Councillors fearful to
make proper democratically-accountable decisions - leading to a double unfairness in the
system.
Strengthen Development Plans including Protections within These Plans - in order to stop
speculative development.
Disallow developers putting in repeated applications for the same sites to try and wear
down planners and communities - at Craighouse, there were several large applications put in
over Christmas - but with high or even higher quantums of development. The developers
delayed things by years - four years in total. This was not the community or the planners' fault.
There should be a two strikes and you're out policy to encourage developers to put in sensible
applications from the outset.
Apply Proper Enforcement - the lack of oversight and enforcement on several local
developments makes a mockery of the planning system. Penalties are neither large enough
nor enforced when it comes to commercial developers on developments that affect whole
communities. Yet individual property owners will receive enforcements over very trivial
matters. "Development creep" is also a big problem: storeys added on, flooding mitigation
downgraded, more development added (all evidenced by local developments in our area)without consulting the general public. Fines should be substantial enough and enforced to
discourage developers from these practices and to fund enforcement costs.
Improving Delivery of Place-Making, Engaging Communities and Improving the Public Perception of
Planning.
The Pre-Application Consultation system is inadequate. Proper oversight of the information
given to the public during the PAC process is needed. This process is used as a tool to
manipulate public perception - rather than engage with the system. The public have a right to
accurate information. Council planners should put out factual briefing documents to
communities outlining the policies, protections and designations on the site in question, plus
relevant information about its development history. (Edinburgh Council already provides such
an advance briefing document to the planning committee.) What is successful is the longer
Notification time - which is welcome and should remain.
Proper and Equal Access to Information for Communities - to allow a full and proper debate
of the issues rather than unprovable claims being made by developers in the papers.
Full Financial Information should be released to the Public. If Economic Development is to be
used as an argument for a development against planning policy - then the public have a right
to examine the economic claims. There are numerous disastrous schemes in Edinburgh that
have claimed economic development but in reality lost the public purse and banks millions of
pounds. (Examples include Caltongate which went into administration losing £63m - and
Quartermile, which has lost hundreds of millions and is still not completed over a decade
later.)
Lobbying - Developers shouldn't be allowed to lobby high up the system without the same
opportunity being afforded to communities. At Craighouse, the developers met John Swinney
to lobby him in the middle of a live planning application. This meeting was not recorded online
as it should have been. Soon after this meeting, Nicola Sturgeon and the head of the
development company were photographed in the paper together in the rubble of a listed
building. The community were afforded no meeting with John Swinney.
The developers employed a professional lobbying company whose methods have been
questioned under Parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons. Legal threats were issued
to community representatives by this company and one of the developers. An attempt was
made to pressurise myself into signing a gagging order. One of the lobbyists circulated a
paragraph to Councillors and Council officials claiming it was written and sent out by myself,
which was untrue. He refused to correct this when challenged. Dealing with this sort of thing
is unpleasant. There is no accountability or proper recourse for communities dealing with
being smeared or legally threatened by large companies.
Such experiences did not give the impression of fairness and openness necessary for the
community to have faith that lobbying did not play a role in the Craighouse case.
Training of Councillors and More Rigorous Assessment of Vested or Personal Interests
Whilst the community is expected to become planning experts, the lack of understanding or
awareness of planning policy or wider planning issues displayed by some Councillors is very
worrying. The level of discussion at the Craighouse hearing was woeful. We have been told
sections of planning committees can be whipped and votes may be traded. Such political
wrangling may be unavoidable - but because of this Councillors should have to give proper
policy reasons for passing a development, as well as refusing one. There should be
requirements on Councillors to read the planning report in full. We suggest that they meet the
developers and meet the communities in an open and transparent way - thus avoiding
clandestine lobbying and meetings. They should receive proper training in planning policy - by
those who draft the policy and such training offered to community representatives also.
There's no proper system for the public to complain about vested interests such as personal
connections. The Council's complaints system is not independent and too slow to stop such
factors impacting on decisions. This needs to be rectified if the public are to restore their faith
in the system.
We would be very willing to provide more evidence of our experience and to speak to the panel
further.
Yours sincerely
Rosy Barnes
Chair of Friends of Craighouse