HILLHEAD COMMUNITY COUNCIL ()

RESPONSE TO PLANNING REVIEW PROPOSALS.

A.

We do not agree that the package proposed will have the desired effect or rotect local communities from undesirable consequences.

Section 1 1.1. We cannot see how this will work in practice.

1.1a It will not serve all communities well, particularly in major cities..

e.g. Glasgow’s community partnership committees have a minority of community representatives. 2 people represent many more communities and do not necessarily have any knowledge of all communities, nor do they consult.

Reporting back, if at all, Is after the event.

1.b Spatial planning can rely too much on developers looking for profitable development opportunities. If the interests of spatial planning and communities conflict, what are the mechanisms for achieving balance? Who has the greater influence?

1.3-1.4 Supplementary guidance. We do not agree that plans should be less technical or that the statutory status of supplementary guidance should be abandoned. Supplementary Guidance makes clear to applicants and objectors alike what is agreed as desirable or otherwise. It is not enforceable unless statutory Since development plans were “streamlined” essential information and requirements were transferred to supplementary guidance. Ours is clear and helpful to all.

1.5 Currently the process is not open and transparent. Formerly all parties could debate the arguments they advanced in front of the reporter. Now one has no idea who proposed what or why one version is adopted rather than another. We advocate the restoration of public debate before the Reporter.

2. We are utterly opposed to increased centralisation of planning Reasons: a) Strongly centralised planning ignores the interests of local communities and even cities. It does not allow local authorities or communities to look after the diverse interests in planning, health, conservation or architectural terms, of local areas.

b) We as a community were much better off with a specific local plan for the West End of Glasgow, until the government imposed short plans covering the whole city, specifying town centres, now reducing local choice and ignoring the requirements of residents. ( Also partly responsible for deterioration in Air Quality, increase in larger licensed premises and fast food outlets.) Any policy to prevent the latter has, we are told, been circumvented by parliament. (cf Botanic garage applications for restaurants). c) Government diktats/policies have not been nuanced like local plans. One blanket policy does not fit all contingencies. e.g. There has been no consideration of the kind or location of more rented accommodation which is required. i) Glasgow planning had a policy to restrict the numbers of Houses in multiple occupation ( HMOs) in areas close to the university to 10% of any street or block. (This has been upheld since 1985 by public enquiries and reporters’ decisions.) This allowed families to coexist (generally) with HMOs catering to the student population.

ii) The latest Government policy directive to Local Authorities stresses the need for more rented property, without considering the type and distribution of such property. No discretion is given to LAs to address local problems. It has sold this community into the hands of absentee landlords, and the consequences of overprovision. Most importantly, planning officers say their hands are tied by this, so they are unable to enforce agreed policies. *) It Is driving out the owner-occupiers who look after the area. (Most recently 2 members of the community council, another looking to move out and two other invaluable contributors leaving Glasgow altogether.) **) It has given us a predominantly floating population affecting our shops, schools and transport, ***) It prevents officers from enforcing the democratically agreed policy on (HMOs ) – now translated, without agreement or discussion with communities, into “no further HMOs in or Woodlands” (not enforced)

****) It has led to deterioration of property and amenity space: back courts now over-full of dustbins, huge pressure on cleansing services(at the expense of rate payers as landlords housing exclusively students do not pay council tax)

Lack of maintenance of fabric of property. is the most notorious, but we have lost 2 buildings to this and another is in doubt. has several owners rendered homeless without recourse due to fire in an uninsured let. (Landlord belatedly taken off register) 58 Cecil Street now being investigated by Environmental Health

Over-occupation of flats designed for families: two to every room or at very least every room occupied at bed-sit. This is unfair to people below.

2. We do not agree. We already have regional involvement in issues such as flooding BUT we cannot see why abolishing strategic plans would be better. a) We suspect this will lead to increased centralisation, which is not in the interests of local communities. b) Doesn’t accord with the other stated objective e.g. more localised planning or “community planning” c) How are the public to be involved/engaged in discussions of transport, green corridors, flooding?

3. NPF. This community council has taken part in every NPF consultation, advocating inter alia cooperation on rivers from head waters to outlet to the sea.

The NPF is useful but it is not in the interest of local authorities or communities to give them greater statutory weight. Nor is it necessary.

a) It will entail more centralisation of planning to which we are opposed.

The NPF governs all other stages of planning policy. It should retain some flexibility for those Local Authorities (LAs) who have major difficulties or other necessary priorities and to enable “community involvement” in local issues.

b) the NPF does not engage enough local or informed interest to make relevant concerns heard at the right moment. The implications are not always appreciated by local communities.

c)NPF should not be used to make LDPs simpler and more consistent. LDPs already too simplified and have to rely on supplementary guidance to make them effective.. LDPs are local, which means they consider local needs and interests. The NPF is not the location for these.

4. Extending LDP plan period to 10 years Remove MIRs and SPG. “Gatecheck” No provision is made for the need for review and changes in the 10 year period. No provisionis made for public consultation on any review or changes.

Consultation opportunities should not be reduced. :Public engagement on LDPs is not adequate (cf also 1.5 above) we have no confidence that the public’s views will be taken into account, particularly given the lack of opportunity for public debate (1.5 above)

Engaging the public needs more time, not less.

Suggested citizen panels is interesting provided the discussion reaches and takes into account the local areas affected.

5 Making plans that deliver. Strengthen commitments in the plan and ensure planning development happens…. a) This argument relies on the misapprehension that early engagement removes any contentious issues, Our experience is that this is pie in the sky. b) We think that the proposals will make plan-making more complicated without resolving problems c) Granting planning permission in principle is not in the public interest, as we have found with the ’s application for the Western Infirmary site, where at least 4 major policies were ignored without any view of the details of the plan. Once outline permission is granted we have found that there is considered to be an obligation to grant whatever appears in the more detailed applications which eventually follow. It is the detail which is often crucial in whether a plan is acceptable or not.

Planning committees: attendance at planning committees considering outline plans does not give us confidence that the proper questions are asked. Some members appear to be ill-informed.

There should be a community right of appeal against decisions which are contrary to the LDP.

Allocation of sites in LDPs. Local communities should still have an effective right to respond to applications at a later date. Later challenges should not be rendered unsustainable.

Some applications are speculative and even contrary to the provisions of the plan (e.g. University of Glasgow western infirmary site but we can cite others.)

5. Community prepared local plans to form part of LDP How are local communities to be enabled to form own local place plans? Many do not have the experience or means to do this. What time scale is envisaged?

In Glasgow local community councils are consulted with variable results, depending on the council and issues

Charettes: We do not have confidence in charrettes, which appear to be developer led and ignore issues which local communities find contentious or of more importance.

If confidence in planning is to be improved there should be an Equal right of appeal for communities. This wold ensure that developers ensure that applications accord with the LDP It would improve decision making It gives confidence that a serious scrutiny is made of contentious decisions, whch is not the case now.

Developers can appeal to a council committee and beyond if dissatisfied with its decision. . It is blatantly unfair that communities with a serious case cannot appeal too.

This community council had to take the council to court to obtain justice in the case of a decision (by LES). Such a course of action is not financially feasible for most or even possible in order to rectify mistakes on the part of planners or committees.

We also had to appeal to the Scottish Parliament to save a grade A listed building of international importance (the Botanic Garage) for which planning permission had been granted to demolish. We could only do so because Historic intervened. We point out that Parliament has greatly reduced the number of appeals it will hear.

We are extremely concerned about the proposal to hand over more decisions to local authority committees rather than an independent review.

7. Involve more people in planning Involving people needs far more constructive an approach than is proposed. There is no perception of an equal weight between developers and communities, whose priorities frequently differ, People need to time to consider a complex application and to seek advice. They need to feel assured that their views have been understood and taken into account. Engagement should be seen to lead to better development.

Section 75 agreements are often used as excuses for reducing amenity and recommended to councillors on the basis of the money accruing to the council.

An equal right of appeal when decision go against the local plan would also do much to help communities trust the planning system and reassure them that it is not deliberately weighted against them. It would also be consistent with the aims of the review to promote local community involvement.

8. Improve public trust. See arguments above on Equal Right of Appeal.

We can see nothing here which would make developers more careful to conform with the development plan. As well as ERA, we would like to see that developers had no right to appeal if their application does not conform with the the local plan.

We welcome the discouragement of retrospective applications, but these need to be tougher, Similarly repeat applications.

Enforcement. This is a subject on which we have very strong views. 1. Insufficient resources. The enforcement team has insufficient staff: 3 for the whole of Glasgow where there were formerly 11 or more. This means a) that they concentrate on high profile cases such as destabilisation of grade a buildings and ignore other matters which infringe LDPs or conditions attached to planning consents. (examples available) b) delay so long in other matters that they assume the sheriff will ask why they delayed 4 years and refuse to convict. (e.g. shop front in listed terrace removed, never replaced despite being made to apply for planning consent for new frontage (granted but ignored). Now deemed “too late” c) insufficient finds to take cases to court. Insufficient faith in Sheriff. d) government cuts to local council financing make the situation infinitely worse e) offenders realise they can get away with most offences. 2. Government policies have interfered with agreed local plans where enforcement action was once taken. 3. ALL breaches of planning control should be investigated and action taken.

9. Keeping decisions local – rights of appeal We disagree strongly with the proposal to make more review decisions by local authorities rather than centrally. There can be no trust in a system which is not subject to independent review. It is a bad principle to allow the people who make decisions to be in charge of appeals against those decisions. (We have already expressed our disquiet about this) We are also concerned that the powers of the Reporter have been curtailed.

Rights of appeal. We disagree with the rejection of an equal right of appeal. (see above) a) there should be a right of appeal against decisions which are contrary t the agreed local plan. b) there should be a right of appeal against weak or flawed decisions on outline applications c) There should be a right of appeal which creates a level playing field between developers and communities d) There should be a right of appeal where local authorities award themselves planning permission . Trust in the planning system and a scrupulous approach to applications can only be encouraged by an Equal right of appeal.

Fear of vexatious appeals is not a valid consideration: it is possible to create a right of appeal which discourages this.

Local Review Bodies are not independent: there is little incentive to take a scrupulous approach to decisions already made by the council. We do not think that members are properly trained or have any knowledge of the issues in a particular area.

10. Clearer, more strategic view of land required for housing This section is based on flawed arguments and assumptions.

The planning system has not slowed housing development. Planning is about the use of land. There is not always the land available. There is a reluctance on the part of developers to develop brownfield sites. Safeguards are also needed against opportunistic applications and poor quality developments.

11. Planning authorities to take more steps to actively deliver consented development See above under 10. There should be a tax on land which is not developed after planning consents are obtained. Automatic renewal of expired planning consents should not be permitted.

12. PLANS SHOULD TAKE A MORE STRATEGIC and flexible approach to identifying land for housing e.g. through simplified planning zones This seems to have been initiated already. Why?

We cannot see any benefit to the community in this. Only bigger financial returns to developers and less scrutiny of developments. Not clear what if any public or community involvement there would be in 2infrasrtructure and development delivery group”. No consideration of developer profit in increasing land value (see 14 below) and alternative to funding infrastructure.

13. Better coordination of infrastructure planning at national and regional level No comment

14. Fund infrastructure through a new local levy. A more sensible approach is to tax the increase in value of land once planning permission is received. This should apply to urban as well as rural land. We have seen examples of speculative applications, then the land in question sold on at a profit once the planning permission is granted. It appears that this can be the object of the land acquisition rather than any intention to develop. Development is then delayed for years.

15 Improve infrastructure planning to deliver low carbo solutions, new digital technologies etc No mention of crucial environmental protection aims/ targets, which should be prime objective.

16 Improve and broaden skills of planners Planning departments need better resource and funding. They are over-stretched and undermanned. We share the RT{I’s concerns about the additional stresses this review will place on experienced planners. Already too many planning applications are delegated to the inexperienced. Training of planners has been reduced in Scotland.

17. Increase planning fees. Although this appears sensible, it imposes further strains on communities and exacerbates inequalities. Already applicants are demanding more cooperative service from planners. When planning was free, it was more impartial and subject to less imposed stress.

18 Strengthen the way planning performance is monitored, reported… Improved.asssessment of planning performance seems to be based on speed, which is not consistent with involving communities, who need time to publicise and assess applications and seek professional advice for the more complex. Proper reporting of public engagement is necessary. Include impact of public engagement on planning decisions and development of places. The quality of public engagement has to be high to be effective.

19. Extend the categories of permitted development, plus targeted changes to development management to enhance speed and transparency of decisions. We emphatically do not agree. Speed is not consistent with proper scrutiny! You assume all and any development is good. Encouraging quick development is not in the public interest or community longer-term interest.

20 Make planning work better through t he use of information technology.

Our experience is that reliance on technology can disadvantage communities, the elderly, the disabled and working people who are unable to access IT or planning departments.. People are unable to get into a planning department to view paper plans (where they exist); We have asked for paper plans and been refused. To inform the locality of plans affecting their area we need paper plans: the system ransfers costs frm the developer or agent to the community. We cannot afford to print out more than A4 sheets, and even that can be prohibitive. The details of the application are missed at that size.

There should always be paper plans available on request to local communities – and not just in planning offices- as we were assured by the previous chief planner would happen..

ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THE WEAKNESSES OF THE REVIEW.

1. No mention of environmental challenges. Environmental protection is a function of the planning system but this is ignored or ominously reduced e.g. 1.37 state assessment and reporting “needs to be proportional”..TO what? The implications is that requirements will be much less in future. The university outline plan for the Western Infirmary site ignored the environmental aspect of encroachment through a listed landscape and wildlife corridor.. Wildlife corridors have been threatened in other Glasgow applications. Other environmental matters are crucial to health which the review advo cates as a prime function of panning!

2. Delivering homes: it seems from this that the priority is to help developers, not to build homes of the quality or type required, or consider how they are to fit into places. . There is no discussion about sustainability or good quality or social or affordable housing. Who is going to deliver the housing? We have no expectation that this will deliver good quality housing, well planned, or improve peoples’ quality of life. The money for developers is in expensive housing to people who can afford to buy. There is no consideration of the type of social housing desperately needed. Even Housing associations have been deprived of much of the funding needed to buy land as well as develop.. The need is for much more social housing and properly mixed communities.

We consider that the review singularly fails to identify the real needs where housing is concerned or to distinguish between types of housing and accommodation needed. Much more detail is needed here.