IN the Long Letter last Wednesday, Gordon Darge, Chartered Architect, has referred to and condemned those “with little knowledge of the planning system” and their “ill-informed comment”.
Mr Darge has made ill-informed assumptions. One of the authors to which it is assumed he is referring (Jim Stamper, July 15) has 40 years’ experience as a chartered architect, working in local authorities, private practice and as a developer. The other signatory to this letter (J Alan McLennan) also has 40 years’ experience as a chartered architect, working in private practice and as a developer.
READ MORE: Letters: It’s saddening to read ill-informed criticism of the SNP on planning
If communities had a right of appeal, Mr Darge’s frivolous example of objections to a domestic planning application could be easily dealt with, by having clarity on which grounds appeals could be made. It is not beyond the ingenuity of legislators to have any appeals made on frivolous grounds dismissed.
It is not our experience that every development is objected to, so we don’t accept that every one would go to appeal. For those that did, there is a cost to the appellant in time and effort, if not financial. Mr Darge’s indication that such an appeal would cost domestic clients tens of thousands of pounds seems grossly exaggerated.
READ MORE: Letters: I can both support the SNP and stand up for local communities
The type of planning situation in which communities should be able to appeal are exemplified by the example Jim Stamper gave of Stead’s Place, where there were large numbers of objections and the councillors on Edinburgh’s development management sub-committee unanimously refused planning consent. Yet that decision was overturned when the developer appealed, leaving objectors and the councillors with no right of appeal against that appeal decision. Currently any developer whose application is refused planning consent can appeal repeatedly, without limit. If this was limited, the cost savings to the local authority would help fund the resources to deal with community appeals.
If developers were aware that communities had a right of appeal, they would likely pay more attention to the wishes of communities and produce proposals more likely to be approved, or at least listen to the views of communities before resubmitting. If there was a six-month delay to the planning process, is that not better than ending up with unreasonable developments built solely for the benefit of developers? Unreasonable developments can destroy communities and will stand for decades.
READ MORE: Letters: SNP joined forces with the Tories to push Planning Bill through
While, as Mr Darge indicates, the public get the opportunity to comment on local authorities’ draft development plans, the average person’s knowledge and understanding of that process means it does not serve the interests of communities well. The fact that the councillors in the development committee had not foreseen the development at Stead’s Place, to which they subsequently unanimously objected, suggests that the draft development plan system is an unrealistic, ineffective safeguard.
Also, while an objection can be made to a proposal, how effective is that objection when the planning committee take it into account and refuse that application, only for it to be ignored when the developer successfully appeals?
As long-standing SNP members, we have both taken all the actions through the party as Mr Darge suggested, but to no effect. While we are well aware of the many good, progressive policies the SNP has been responsible for, we will not accept policies which are undemocratic in order not to “rock the boat”. This is nothing to do with frustration at the “lack of progress towards independence”. It is to do with wanting something better for the people and communities of Scotland than would be expected in a Conservative UK.
Jim Stamper and J Alan McLennan (Chartered Architects)
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