Bill frews and Geraint Ellis presentations

Planning: The People’s Perspective conference

Glasgow, 25 April 2015#pppconf15

Morning programme

• Clare Symonds – Planning Democracy

• Bill and Lorraine Frew – Canobie

• James Mackenzie – Sustainable Shetland

• Rosy Barnes – Friends of Craighouse

• Prof. Geraint Ellis – University of Belfast

• Your questions

• Helen McDade and Ally Tibbitt – Planning Democracy

Bill and Lorraine FrewCanonbie


CANONBIE FROM THE AIR!

4

Canonbie-The story so Far

• Greenpark Energy/DART/ Planning Consents

• 20 drillsites + Gas pressurisation Unit (5 Acres)

Practical implications:

• 16,000 HGV Movements during site prep.

• 120 weeks of set-up/dismantle

• 240 weeks of 24/7 Drilling

• 72k litres of Produced water per site per day

• Remember this is only Phase 1!

5

CANONBIE-THE LOCAL CONTEXT

6

Planning Sequence

• 2007 “Test” site approved by Area Planning Committee

• 2009-10 Two Batches of 10 + 8

• 2010 Gas Compressor/Treatment site

7

Map of Canonbie sites

8

Parallel proposals

• Opencast coal mines

• Underground Coal Gasification

• Drift Mine

• Industrial zone / “Energy Park”

9

Broadmeadows CanonbieOne of 20 sites approved

10

The current view!

11

Angling on the Esk

Local Auction

13

Public Consultation

• Greenpark Energy 2009

• Meetings fronted by Buccleuch

• Exhibition by Dart Energy May 2013 on new “paired-well” technology

14

Community Perceptions

• Lack of information

• Power and influence of local landowner

• Role of the Community Council

• Formation of Residents Association

15

Directionally drilled well

16

Faulty Borehole construction • Identified by SEPA?

• “At one site near Canonbie, four wells were constructed with casing that was not cemented between 100m and 400m below ground level. This potentially allowed saline waters from the Coal Measures at the bottom of this uncemented zone to travel up to and contaminate the Permian Sandstone aquifer at the top of this zone” SEPA Report 2012

17

Community action• Formal Complaint to D&G Council 2013

• Complaint to SPSO 2014

• Campaign of local opposition

• Formally constituted Residents Association

• Broad Alliance of Scottish Communities

18

Canonbie & District Residents Association

• ‘People M

People Make Canonbie!

19

Summing Up• SPP/NPF3: Unconventional gas extraction

•Implications of Energy Minister’s announcement 28/01/15 of moratorium

•Review of Planning Regulations

•Local Development Plans

•Sequential extraction of minerals

•Public Consultation

20

James MackenzieSustainable Shetland


Rosy BarnesFriends of Craighouse


Morning programme






• Your questions


Geraint EllisSchool of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering

Queen’s University, Belfast [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

What are Planning Appeals?

What is the process, why are they important?

Why no Equal Right of Appeal (ERA)?

Arguments against, and for ERA

FoE

The objective of the planning system is to promote development in ‘the public interest’.

The planning system supports development as a key aspect of a market economy and a liberal society.

There is an assumption in favour of development unless evidence suggests otherwise;

The uplift in value as a result of planning permission is kept by the landowner;

Typically no reasons are given for the award of permission, but have to be given for refusal;

Planning appeals are an important safeguarding feature of the planning system;

They are seen as a ‘natural right’ for appellants and the system would be seen to be unjust without them.

However, no rights of appeal for anyone other than the appellant – the only opportunity is through a legal challenge.

Everyone who applies for planning permission in the UK has the right to challenge the decision.

In Scotland, this is generally* made to the Scottish Ministers. These are made to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals

(DPEA) within 3 months of the decision. Most decisions are made by Reporters in the name of the Ministers. This may involve written submissions, a hearing or a public local public inquiry. There are opportunities for ‘third parties’ to make representations, but these vary

according to process.

*Since 2013 decisions on ’local development’ are reviewed by the appropriate council

Developer submits application to local planning

authority

A process for a planning application decision

Decision by local planning authority

‘Third party’ observations


Approved Refused

Appeal decision by Scottish Ministers

Approved Refused

Developer submits appeal to Scottish Ministers

Legal Challenge by anyone

A second consideration of the merits of a development –possibly in more detail, possibly in public.

Appeals transfer decisions from local to central government; They take decisions out of hands of local elected

representatives. Appeals have significant resource implications for all

involved; They give rights of ‘voice’ only and do not guarantee a

change in the decision; Under the existing system ‘poor’ decisions over refusals can

be scrutinised, those relating to permissions are condoned.

Developer submits application to local planning

authority

A process for a planning application decision

Decision by local planning authority



Approved Refused

Appeal decision by Scottish Ministers

Approved Refused

Developer submits appeal to Scottish Ministers

Legal Challenge by anyone

‘Third party’ submits an appeal

Fundamentally about what we see as the role of the the planning system.

Appeals initially introduced as a safeguard for landowners, and still seen in that context.

Increasingly value place on speed of decisions not the quality of outcome.

The dominance of the market and perceptions of ‘red tape’ Dominant concepts of the ‘public interest’

Ironically, equal appeal rights are the ‘opposition’s friend’.

Principle: Equality of Rights Quality of outcome: scrutiny of permissions and

refusals; Increased public confidence and integrity. A planning system that should be pro-

sustainable development, not just pro-development

ERA would be a disincentive for investment and make Scotland uncompetitive;

ERA have tangible costs and intangible benefits;

They slow down the planning system; ERA are a NIMBY’s charter; ERA undermine local democracy; ERA can block socially needed developments More red tape and more conflict; There is enough opportunities for

participation, including ‘front –loading’ There has been enough reform;

How come it works in other countries, some with better economies? Outcomes NOT speed should be the measure of good planning; Existing participation does not seem to work for every body… developers

and planning authorities would listen more with a threat of appeal; Many of the arguments also apply to developer appeals – why not abolish

rights of appeal for everyone? The way the ERA system is designed can overcome many of the arguments

against.

Parties allowed to appeal? Grounds of appeal? Type of planning decision open to appeal? Type of development? Time limits for an appeal? Appeal process? Appeal fees? Appeal costs?

What sort of planning system do we want? ERA are a key issue for planning reform and planning

democracy – it signifies who matters. The key debates should be about principles of ERA as the

process can be designed to overcome many of the arguments against.

Will Scotland lead the way?

Questions






• Your questions


Planning: The People’s Perspective conference


Afternoon programme

• Speed date networking session in the MAIN HALL.

• Workshop session 1

• Tea / coffee

• Workshop session 2

• Conference ends

Speed date networking session – fun!Glasgow, 25 April 2015

#pppconf15

Government & Nonprofit

Bill frews and Geraint Ellis presentations