Overhaul doesn't grant a greater say

Despite many welcome aspects, they fundamentally fail to tackle the unfairness or imbalance of the current system. The heart of that imbalance is the fact that, although developers can appeal against a rejection of a planning application, the community that will have to endure an ugly, polluting or disruptive development on their doorstep has no right of appeal against the granting of planning permission.

Friends of the Earth has been campaigning for such a "third party right of appeal" for several years. We proposed a system similar to that in the Republic of Ireland, which has worked successfully for many years in an economy that has grown much faster than Scotland's. In Ireland, the system does not give communities a veto, but ensures that the proposal is independently reviewed - in the vast majority of cases this has led to improved proposals going ahead.

Last year, the Executive consulted on a similar idea and received an unprecedented level of response - many times more than for other planning policy consultations, and overwhelmingly in favour of limited third party rights. Eighty-six per cent of respondents favoured granting communities rights of appeal.

Developers, however, were opposed - arguing against all the evidence, that such rights would harm economic growth. Short-term commercial interest won out, and the idea of a limited third party right of appeal for communities has been rejected. Nor have developers' rights of appeal been curtailed, which would have been an acceptable alternative.

The White Paper also suggests that third party rights would be undemocratic by taking decisions away from locally elected councillors. But that concern hasn't stopped ministers taking powers to direct planning authorities on a whole range of issues.

And very few planning decisions are significant enough to swing an election. So developers' offers of planning gain, or threats of costs and surcharges against councillors should they reject applications, are very influential.

Worse, the detail of the reforms reveals that even existing rights of involvement in key planning decisions are to be curtailed. Leaked Cabinet papers reveal that communities will no longer be able to challenge the need for developments at public inquiry if those proposals are deemed "national priorities" by ministers.

Perhaps the most hypocritical aspect of this is that it leaves communities no choice but to adopt the Nimby (not in my back yard) stance. Unable to challenge the need for controversial developments such as major roads, power stations or waste facilities, communities will understandably argue for putting them elsewhere. Curtailing such challenges will also push conflict out of the planning system into the courts and into direct action - thus creating more delay.

The central reform is the introduction of a new "hierarchy" of planning, with different treatment for different scales of proposal. The principle is sound, but the proposals are over-centralised, and lacking accountability.

By reducing participation and challenge for national and major priorities, the Executive risks creating a developer's charter.

Claims that many of the proposals will enhance participation are political spin. For example, planning hearings are widely used by planning authorities already, with little community support, even where objectors get more than a few minutes to put their case. Recently, in the Douglas Valley in Lanarkshire, 600 objectors to three opencast mine proposals got just 15 minutes to put their case to the council.

The idea that neighbours will be notified of major proposals when they are included in the development plan is also mainly spin. Development plans typically set out broad policies rather than being a collection of site-specific proposals. Such proposals are already notified to neighbours once applications are submitted.

But there are welcome elements in the reform package. For example, powers to effectively reject repeat applications "out of hand" will speed up the system and help communities. Duties on statutory consultees to engage will mean that planning authorities get timely input from expert advisors.

The piloting of Good Neighbour Agreements should help communities ensure some developments meet higher standards and the proposed mediation project might also help communities resolve controversial concerns.

However,without third-party rights, these reforms fail communities.

Duncan McLaren is chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland