Forget the Nimby Charter

25 Oct 2005

The Scottish Parliament\'s White Paper Modernising the Planning System makes for interesting reading, promising the reform of planning. Planners, developers and architects will be accountable and the process transparent, with the public involved in decision making and influencing development.

There is a proposal for a Third Party Right of Appeal, which looks unlikely to succeed – an outcome that I welcome. Recently, our office was overwhelmed by objections to a planning application in the West End of Glasgow. The objectors were organised to scupper our proposals.

The process was lengthy and involved public consultation. We responded to issues raised by local residents but the hardcore minority toughened and constructive discussion became impossible. Opinions polarised, minds were made up. Eight hundred people, not all local residents, \"did not want it\". Supporters of our development felt intimidated.

Ours was not a radical proposal but highly sensitive to the conservation area, and we proposed quality materials. We respected the scale of the existing tenements and hid new parking. We carried out sun path analyses and environmental impact studies, all dismissed by the objectors.

This site is semi-derelict and adjoining a railway line. You might expect a welcome response to 40 new apartments and a mews terrace. The press was whipped up and we were front page in the local paper. Letters decrying the patronage of the council were printed, but we had addressed the objectors’ concerns in a comprehensive approval document. So why did they bother?

The truth is that any new development potentially impacts existing property values. Defenders of the Third Party Right of Appeal often quote the need to scrutinise development on sensitive sites such as wind farms in the Outer Hebrides or the siting of nuclear power plants. It is my assertion that this is a politically correct response and that this right would be used as a foil for the Nimby brigade to halt any development it does not like.

Getting housing development approval is nothing in comparison to obtaining consent for a school we designed for children with special needs. Here, objections and criticism were motivated by pure self-interest. “We\'ve nothing against the school,” the community action group said. “We\'d just like you to build it somewhere else.” This is a design specifically tailored for the children and the site. The briefing programme took over a year, with consultants, teachers, parents and the children.

The school will be the first of its kind in Europe and is an exemplar. In the end, planning approval was obtained and the school has been critically well received ... by everyone outside its immediate location. Third Party Right of Appeal would have meant it would never have been built and children with real physical and sensory need would have languished in inappropriate accommodation.

There will be ample opportunity to accommodate public participation in the planning and development process. A National Planning Framework and a statutory five-year update is proposed for all development plans. There will be a legal requirement for pre-application consultation, to air local views and procedures to engage local people. Any plan that does not accord with statutory development plans will be subjected to \"enhanced levels of scrutiny\".

Significantly, the planning system will now strive for high-quality design in all new development. The outcome must balance community representation with opportunity for investment and encouragement of quality development. In my view, the proposals contained within the White Paper succeed in doing just that … but forget the Nimby charter.

Alan Dunlop

Discuss third party right to appealhere