City of Edinburgh Council has made a firm – if slightly surprising – defence of how it processed the 154 McDonald Road planning application.
Spurtle contacted officials on Tuesday asking to know why CEC had failed to notify the developer of its decision to refuse planning consent within the statutory period required. (This had formed the grounds for Kingsford Developments’ subsequent successful appeal to Scottish Ministers.) We wondered if lessons had been learned and requested statements from Planning Convener Ian Perry and Chief Executive Sue Bruce. Instead we got a long explanation from a CEC spokesperson.
She began by outlining how the Council’s system has been in operation for around 40 years, and is the same as that used by local authorities across Scotland.
She continued by saying that, after the Development Management subcommittee’s vote against the proposal on 6 November 2013, CEC officers then had to draft the reasons behind that decision before presenting them for approval to the next available subcommittee meeting on 4 December.
At this point, it seemed to Spurtle that a systemic flaw had become apparent. CEC systems simply couldn’t react quickly enough.
It’s not that simple, said the spokesperson. Owing to the complexity of this case and the time it had taken to assess (Kingsford made their application on 26 June), ‘the clock was already ticking’ long before this last-minute 4-week delay. Kingsford Developments could in theory have claimed non-determination as early as 26 August.
So is non-determination in complicated cases impossible to avoid? Possibly, but it’s irrelevant.
Kingsford, said the spokesperson, could easily have appealed on other grounds to do with the development plan, and the Reporter’s decision would have been the same.
It took a while after this explanation for Spurtle to pick its jaw off the ground. It seems initially as if the whole planning process involving Council officers, members of the public and their elected representatives can simply be bypassed by developers who don’t like a decision.
However, on reflection, we can see the logic of a system that means arguably flawed planning decisions can be challenged according to demonstrable technical standards by an impartial Reporter. This should – in theory – prevent politicised or otherwise wrongheaded responses from stymying legitimate proposals.
There again, to the lay observer, it appears to favour developers with two bites at the cherry. They, after all, have a right of appeal against Councils’ refusal of planning consent, whereas the public has no right of appeal against Councils’ granting of planning permission.
It’s a bewildering system. Perhaps, after 40 years, it could do with a review.
What do you think about Planning in Edinburgh? Tell us by email spurtle@hotmail.co.uk Facebook Broughton Spurtle or Twitter @theSpurtle