Letter to Derek McKay MSP

Dear Sir

PKC’s Proposed Local Development Plan & National Statutory Planning Framework

At our Council meeting on 18/12/13 we agreed to adopt the above Plan (as modified) following its examination by the Reporter; it has been submitted to Scottish Ministers.

However, a number of Councillors referred on the day of the debate, including myself, to the apparent ‘democratic deficit’ within the planning system because we were advised that there was really no flexibility to depart from the recommendations of the Reporters appointed by your Government.

This Plan was my first experience of the process endorsed in the more recent planning regulations of 2008. One plan for the whole PKC area replaces our current 6 area plans, with fewer policies and only one hearing session and no public inquiry. The Examination Report is largely binding on Planning Authorities under 2009 regulations. Whilst I personally was reasonably content with the Reporters conclusions in relation to my Ward of Kinross-shire (although I would have welcomed a hearing on the Powmill settlement proposals and subsequent significant reduction in housing numbers recommended), a number of Councillors were aggrieved at other changes, in particular the Almond Valley Village proposal being reinstated by the Reporters into PKC’s Plan.

The Reporters had more time to hold hearings on contentious issues and could have done so; PKC had no opportunity to request such hearings in response to recommendations. In reality written representations have informed Reporter modifications with virtually no opportunity (as under the previous planning system) for representations in person at an inquiry or hearing.

When one considers the amount of time input by communities to the forward planning process, this is a serious ‘democratic deficit’.

I therefore wish to intimate dissatisfaction with the current provisions of the ‘TCP (Grounds to Follow Recommendations) (S) Reg.s 2009’. This statutory framework does not allow sufficient flexibility for Councils to depart from a Reporter’s recommended modifications, and the effect of this has been to create a democratic deficit. As a result, this does not provide a planning process in which either Councillors or their communities can have full confidence.

I would like your assurance that this planning process will be reviewed and changes considered that may address the above concerns.

Yours faithfully

Councillor Mike Barnacle
Independent Member for Kinross-shire

cc Councillor Ian Miller
Councillor Mac Roberts
Councillor Archie Maclellan
Councillor Dave Cuthbert
Councillor Peter Barrett

Letter to Nick Brian – New Access at Kilmagadwood

Dear Nick

New Road Access at Kilmagadwood

I met PKC Officers, Portmoak CC representative, local residents and fellow Ward Councillor Giacopazzi on 21/11/13 at the above site, following my attached email of 24/10/13.

The principal concern of residents, the CC and local members is the present unsafe junction put in on the basis of a condition of planning permission that was not ‘fit for purpose’. It is now imperative that the road edge to the north of the junction, alongside the new earth mounds on the development site, is reduced in height to ensure safe egress to the main road as soon as possible. I understand that the new planning application regarding the access is in the name of the original site owner but the plot adjacent to the main road is in different ownership. I strongly suggest that no further work should be undertaken at the Kilmagadwood site until the access road has been implemented in accordance with guidance on rural roads (not suburban ones) the Council promote on their website.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

cc        Mark Williamson                   Councillor Giacopazzi

John Thomson                       Residents

Portmoak CC

Daryl McKeown

Letter to Ian Innes – Planning Procedure, Loch Leven Catchment

Dear Ian

Memo of Understanding for Planning Procedure for applications in the Loch Leven Catchment

Local Members in Kinross-shire met with the Kinross-shire Community Councils Forum/Network on 20/11/13 to discuss the above, in the presence of an invited representative from SEPA.

I enclose my email of 10/10/13 to Peter Marshall re this subject. I accepted some of Peter’s response but in relation to retrospective applications the conditions 2 and 3 cannot be met and I responded on 15/10/13 as follows:

“Your response in point 3, with the greatest respect, misses the point I have been making in relation to the expansion and proliferation of gypsy/traveller sites in the Loch Leven catchment. Since such applications are nearly always retrospective and your department does nothing to discourage the practice, the memo’s conditions 2 and 3 cannot be adhered to. Your policy and lack of enforcement approach on gypsy/travellers sites is therefore completely at odds with protecting the Loch and the policy/guidance thereof. So my concerns remain well founded.”

I have not received a reply.

Even more concerning, the SEPA representative at the above meeting (Planning at PKC were invited but did not attend) stated that his organisation have not formally signed agreement to this memo that is now being used in planning reports.

The local Members in Kinross-shire would appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

Kind regards.

 

Yours sincerely

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

On behalf also of Councillors Cuthbert, Giacopazzi and Robertson

 

 

 

 

 

cc        Peter Marshall