| A cautionary tale Alison Graves shares her story of how frustrating it can be when the general public have to deal with government bureaucracy. This story involves the detail of a planning consent for an industrial unit as interpreted by a local council's planning department and the developer. The industrial unit is in fact a windfarm, but could equally be a housing scheme, supermarket, biomass plant and so on. Situated at the eastern edge of the OchiIs, the Lochelbank windfarm was granted planning consent after a lengthy Public Local Inquiry in August 2007. The consent was subject to 32 planning conditions put in place by a Reporter appointed by the Scottish Executive, and agreed by all parties after a lengthy session at the Inquiry. At that time, Lochelbank was one of the most highly conditioned windfarm planning consents granted. The Reporter attached these numerous conditions due to the highly sensitive and rare biodiversity that exists on the site and in the surrounding area. She also took the step of identifying the neighbouring local community councils of Bridge of Earn and Glenfarg as statutory consultees, in recognition of the detailed and relevant information given to the Inquiry by these local communities. Along with others such as Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), as a named statutory consultee, you are entitled to view reports and surveys regarding the proposal, to comment on these in relation to the relevant planning condition, and be consulted by the local planning department. Ultimately, it is the planning department that, once satisfied the developer has complied with the planning conditions, discharges the planning conditions prior to the development commencing. Thus the good folk of Glenfarg and Bridge of Earn, although disappointed the scheme had been approved, felt their local knowledge would assist in the best possible compliance with the Reporter's decision and conditions. Unfortunately this was not the outcome. It soon became apparent that either planning officials had not read the Reporter's decision letter and attached conditions or had interpreted them incorrectly. In spite of many frustrating months communicating with Perth & Kinross Council Planning Department, local Councillors, MSPs and MPs, it took the intervention of the local MEP for the Council and the developer to recognise the community councils' role as statutory consultees. All correspondence sent by the communities to the Reporters Unit regarding this was returned, until a specific request was made for this to be kept on file. Once the Reporter has made a decision there is no further dialogue. After many requests, an initial meeting with Perth & Kinross Council Planning Department and representatives from the (PAGE 6) community councils took place, and reports and surveys were forthcoming. Annoyingly, many of these were out of date and/or incomplete, with maps and tables missing. It is crucial these reports are accurate so that, for example, all private water supplies are identified; if they aren't established at this stage, when an unidentified private water supply is affected by the development, the property/owner may not have recompense from the developer. Surveys must also be accurate with regard to site restoration, so that all rare species and habitats are reinstated by the developer. The community councils were so concerned that rare plant species had been missed, that they commissioned experts to undertake a further survey, which did identify nationally rare plants missed by the developer. This was brought to the attention of Perth & Kinross Council, but any queries raised by the communities to the Council appeared to elicit only the developer's views via the Council. It also became apparent that some of the previously agreed conditions had been radically changed at the request of the developer. How much planning conditions can be changed is currently a 'grey area' and would involve a legal challenge incurring costs that many communities cannot afford. Over the next two years two further meetings were eventually convened with the Council, SNH and SEPA. At the last meeting, the Council agreed to undertake many outstanding actions, only for them to renege and pass the planning conditions due to pressure from the developer. This cautionary
tale demonstrates how much can be changed after a planning consent is
granted, despite initially strong and reasoned conditions put in place
to protect a highly sensitive area. |