SAS was represented by Rachel Connor and Aileen Jackson
- The DPEA has significant staff shortages at the moment, both of Reporters and of Case Officers . Self employed Reporters have been used to try and reduce the case load , avoid a back log of cases and attempt to provide Reports to Scottish Ministers within target times. They are recruiting for long term staff at the moment, but in the meantime, there may be some delays in the administration of individual cases and DPEA hope that customers will be understanding.
- DPEA are to undertake a customer satisfaction survey to all participants involved in Public Inquiry Decisions. This will apply to all new Inquiries from this week and Inquiry participants will be notified about the survey once a Decision is issued.
The topics , with a scale type score of, for example 1-10, will be
– How easy/difficult it is to navigate the DPEA Scottish Gov. website
– How easy/difficult it is to navigate the Case publication part of the website
– Satisfaction in dealing with DPEA Case Officers (if applicable)
– Additional comments - DPEA figures have significantly increased since last year, particularly in relation to enforcement appeals and for appeals that should be referred to Local Review Bodies. There seems to be a lot of confusion amongst members of the public, developers and/or their Agents as to where appeals should be directed. If an application is decided under delegated powers, any appeal should be directed to the LRB. If the application was decided by Councillors of the Planning Committee, the appeal should be lodged with DPEA to be considered by a Reporter acting on behalf of Scottish Ministers.
DPEA will change its guidance to clarify matters and the section on Appeal procedures will be updated in the DPEA Guidance Handbook. - From the New Year (Covid restrictions allowing) it is hoped most Appeal Public Inquiries (PLIs) will be held in person.
There is discussion going on at the moment about whether it may be possible for some witnesses to appear in camera only as a ‘blended’ approach, as the feedback from the pandemic period Inquiries is that members of the public find virtual participation less intimidating and confrontational than appearing in person, particularly for cross examination. However, it is also recognised that connectivity issues are a very real barrier to proper public participation in many rural areas. - DPEA sought the opinion from SAS as to whether the public preferred local facilities for Inquiries, or would be prepared to travel to somewhere more centrally with better Internet and less travelling for parties (presumably the DPEA and Appellant parties in particular)
SAS’s view was that local Inquiries were better for the public who might find difficulty combining both normal work and attending an Inquiry and difficulty travelling long distances to an Inquiry. - DPEA Guidance Note 23, which relates to administrative and other issues surrounding PLI’s were discussed. Most Inquiries are related to s.36 (>50MW) windfarms. The average time for a Decision to be issued is more than a year. There is considerable pressure (particularly from the Renewable sector) to reduce this time to a Decision.
DPEA are looking at trying to improve the ‘pinch points’ which include factors such as difficulty in getting availability of dates suiting all parties for Pre Examination meetings (PEM) and Inquiry and Hearing dates. Another factor that causes considerable delay (as third parties are only too aware) is the need for submission and notification of additional environmental information.
One participant complained that public notification was slowing things down and this should be removed. Rachel pointed out that it was a requirement under Environmental Impact Regulations derived from the Aarhus convention, that such information required to be publicly notified and time allowed (6 weeks) for the public to make comment if they wished.
It is likely that targets will be set for
– PEMs to be held by week 12 of submitting an appeal.
– Inquiries to be held by week 30 at the latest
– Document management will be changed and updated to make Appeal documents more
readily accessible by all
– There may be changes to the content and length of precognitions to allow more focus on outstanding issues needing to be examined at an Inquiry
– Parties are likely to be asked to submit an altered format to a closing statement which is more of a summary position/ statement of case, to make it easier for the Reporter when writing the Decision Note.
- Aileen tabled the issue that DPEA case documents are confusing and difficult to access for the public. This issue has been addressed well by some appellants who will organise the document list (often many hundreds of documents) for an Inquiry and issue participants with memory sticks for easy document access. However, other developers’ teams are less able or willing and this puts the third parties in particular at serious disadvantage.
In response, DPEA is committed to reorganising case documents and may consider grouping them by subject ( eg. Policy, LVIA, Noise, Private water supplies and Hydrology etc) as well as whether legacy documents have been superseded by additional information from an appellant
DPEA offered to organise a tutorial for members of the public to aid their understanding and manipulation of the website. Aileen was asked to contact Admin for further details of how this could be taken forward.
- DPEA will be changing the storage of documents on its website to bring it into line with the ECU in the New Year.
All case documents will be held for 12 weeks following a Decision.
After 12 weeks, third party objections and some other documents with personal details will be removed. Other documents will remain on the website for 7 years.
Decision Notices will remain on the website for 30 years.
It was noted in discussion that there was considerable variability by Local Authorities in holding documents for any length of time. For example, Aileen reported that East Renfrewshire removes everything after 3 years and then charges £50 if a document is to be retrieved. Their reason for this has always been given as “data protection”. Alastair McKie believed they had misinterpreted the Data Protection Guidance for Planning Authorities and that this should be challenged.
Aileen also mentioned the different approaches taken by Local Authorities at Planning Committee Meetings. Some allow members of the public to speak while others do not. This can be very frustrating when inaccurate information is given to Councillors by Officers or in some cases, the Officer cannot answer the Councillors’ questions, resulting in an uninformed decision being made.
DPEA offered to bring both of these issues up with Heads of Planning Scotland and also asked Aileen to write to HoPS giving full details.
- Rachel tabled the issue of New Technology e.g. Green Hydrogen factories and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in particular, being tacked onto to recent windfarm applications with no consideration of disaster management and public and environmental safety.
Hydrogen is highly explosive and the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen requires vast amounts of clean (public) water – a particular concern with climate change and periods of drought.
BESS units are now widely reported worldwide to suffer problems with spontaneous combustion, explosion, injuries to fire fighters and subsequent production of toxic environmental pollutants.
There is a requirement in existing EIA Legislation for windfarms ( and other EIA developments) for developers to submit information related to potential disasters and for Reporters to consider this. At present BESS units are often added to windfarm applications with no environmental assessment or disaster management plan and are simply consented along with the rest of the proposal.
DPEA agreed this was an increasing issue with recent appeals and would draw this matter to the attention of Reporters to ensure that such proposals receive adequate scrutiny.
0 Comments