Planning Matters including Applications
Planning Matters
The new Planning (Scotland) Act 2006 was heralded as “the most fundamental and comprehensive reform of our planning system in sixty years”. “It will bring in a much more inclusive community involvement” and “greater public participation and scrutiny of proposals for all major developments, most EIA developments, proposals which are significantly contrary to development plans and larger scale bad neighbour developments”. Our recent experiences as a Community Council serve as a reminder that good intentions even when enshrined in an Act cannot be relied upon to deliver an inclusive and efficient planning system. We need to stay alert to the possible implications of any of these developments for the well-being of our community. For now let’s review BGK CC’s planning procedure.
Each week Perth and Kinross Council circulates lists of all new planning applications to the Community Councils as statutory consultees. The list will occasionally include major developments (e.g. one involving 50 or more houses or sites of 2 or more hectares).that should already be known to BGK CC through the new consultation procedure. The Applicants in these cases are now (since the Act came into force on 6th April 2009) required to allow a three month pre-application period of consultation during which relevant Community Councils must be notified and at least one public event organised by them at which people will be able to make comments about the proposal. The date and place of the event shall be published in a local newspaper at least one week in advance. In this way, by the time such an application appears on the weekly list it should, if the process is working properly, have been fully scrutinised by the public. A wise applicant will have taken their views into account before submitting an application. PKC will initiate a ‘consultation’ at this point, that is send a letter inviting the Community Council to comment within 21 days.
In cases where a development is not major but PKC Council judges that it is likely to affect the amenity in the area of a Community Council it will invite them in writing to comment on the application within 21 days. A Community Council can itself initiate a consultation on any other application on the list within 7 days of its receipt. This would prompt a consultation letter giving 21 days to reply. In such cases Community Councils are advised to limit their attention to proposals which raise issues of genuine community interest. The consultation letter will not normally include a copy of the application documents as these are available to view online.
BGK CC has no statutory duty regarding any other planning applications on the weekly list, which will be mostly minor developments, for example extensions/modifications to houses, shop signs, and even the building of a single new house. The onus is now on the applicant to notify neighbours and for them to comment or object, as appropriate, on the proposed development bordering their properties. This they can do by emailing DevelopmentManagement@pkc.gov.uk, or by phoning 01738 475300.
Anyone who has information regarding a development that is of genuine community interest or has any issue with planning matters relating to a property within Ward 12 of Perth and Kinross can contact the Community Council by emailing bgkcc@hotmail.co.uk. When the Community Council makes a written response to a planning application it will be posted to our web-site www.bgk.org.uk.
Planning applications can also be viewed on the Perth and Kinross Council website.
Fernhill/Bellwood Park
The planning application reference number is 10/00514/IPL. The last day for comments on this application is the 7 May 2010.
Edinmore's promises are:-
1. Restriction of the number of house plots to four and each of these to be non-divisible
2. Upper field to be gifted to the community through a covenant/trust
3. Outline consent to be made conditional on access via Bellwood Park
4. Effective screening of the site from current neighbours
The Community Council's preferred option in the best interest of the wider community is refusal.
if consent were granted, the Community Council would want the promises to be made legally binding and/or made a condition on approval by PKC.
Promise 1 - Unless PKC decides to treat it as a condition in the determination of the 'in principle' application, it is not guaranteed.
Promise 2- Edinmore are actively seeking a Trust that would take on the upper field. There has been an indication of interest but it would be more reassuring if this matter had progressed further.
Promise 3- The decision whether to take access from Fernhill Road or Bellwood Park can not currently be decided and would need to be deferred as a reserved matter for the detailed planning stage.
Promise 4- Assurances with respect to tree screening need also to be made good.
Although the public consultation report claims wide support from among the 60 or so people attending the engagement event on 3rd September, the development would surely be unacceptable to them unless all conditions were met. The uncertainty and prospect of something much larger scale at some point in the future may have persuaded the participants that Edinmore's proposal amounted to a lesser evil.
The promises are not sufficiently underpinned at this stage for the Community Council to be assured that this development would not negatively impact on Kinnoull Hill and its infra-structure.
The site is designated in the adopted plan as an Area of Great Landscape Value and there are not material grounds for departing from the presumption against development. The site has an 'outstanding scenic character' locally even if it cannot be seen from the city centre (though it can be seen from places in the Glasgow Road area and is therefore part of the Perth landscape!). Neither is it 'flat' as Edinmore say in their application statement , rising more than twenty metres NW-SE.
The other main objection is of course over roads and infra-structure. The Community Council's arguments have been well honed over the years.
Word file: Fernhill Letter Of Objection (41KB)
We commented on 09/00348/REM (Waste to Energy Plant).
There follows our mail to Councillor Barrett :-
"We find it quite disturbing that an application of such significance and importance has been dealt with as it was. It is extraordinary that there were:-
1) no objections to the application from adjoining properties or the general public.
2) it was dealt with under delegated powers and was therefore not considered by the Development Control Committee.
3) that we were listed as consultees, but we were never consulted (EIA -Opinion on Scoping Report 06-02-09)
4) Approval was granted ( Delegated Report 08-03-06) despite an 'objection due to the lack of information' from Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) - PKC Environmental Services response was - 'consider it acceptable in principal provided full details are submitted at the reserved matters stage to ensure noise, dust and other forms of emissions can be properly assessed and controlled.'
Does this mean that a Full Planning Submission is not now a requirement?
5) there was no serious concern about the existing road infrastructure serving this site.
' My roads colleagues are satisfied about the principle in terms of road safety, subject to a detailed scheme having access, parking and turning facilities to an acceptable standard"
We contacted PKC after the public meeting on 16th April in Kinnoull Church Hall when we obtained the views of the public. We continue in our efforts to have this consent revoked. We attended the PKC meeting on 24th November 2009 when the reserved matters application was refused and the meeting of the full Council on March when a decision on revocation was postponed. More details can be found under Shore Road Waste to Energy Plant
Correspondence
The following letters have been sent to/from the Head of Planning:-
Word file: Traffic letter to Planning Department, June 2008 (30 KB)
Word file: T.P.O. letter to Planning Department, April 2008 (29.5 KB)
Word file: Mast letter to planners (28.5KB)
Word file: Email from Planning Department 17 June 08 (29.5KB)