Letter: Reform localised

Contrary to Craig McLaren's assertion (Letters, 15 February), Reform Scotland did not claim that greater community involvement in the planning system was a panacea.

We argued for much else besides, in particular for a change in the way local authorities are financed so that they raise most of the money they spend.

This would mean that new development would bring extra revenue to councils and help to ensure that they weigh the costs and benefits of any proposed development, leading to a better balance being struck between economic development and protection of the environment.

Our report makes it clear that devolution of responsibility for local planning needs to be linked to greater fiscal decentralisation in order to improve the system and avoid "nimbyism". Further, we acknowledged that national or major developments with a wider strategic significance would still be decided by the Scottish Government or the wider local authority, but with enhanced local community involvement.

Where we differ is that we think the right level for many planning decisions is the local community. Just as in Scandinavian countries, local communities in Scotland, given the right incentives, are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves how their areas should develop without the guidance of a higher authority. The results of the current approach to planning do not satisfy many, which is why Reform Scotland thinks we should be looking at such alternatives as a matter of urgency.

Geoff Mawdsley

Reform Scotland

North St David Street

Edinburgh