Most objectors have never actually bothered to study the plan and national/council policies. If a thing is worth doing it should be done properly.
There is no point in properly presenting a product, service or opinion
which is flawed in the first place.

Anyway why not help people to express there support for proposals and encourage them to do so? Those who will benefit from appoval rarely express support for such, often because they dont understand the matter.

In my experience the majority of objections are largely based on self-interest although there is usually attempts to seem otherwise. Moreover, objectors often do not know just what the aims of the planning system are and what national/local policies are and the development plan contains . Many do not know that retention of views and privacy are not valid planning concerns. If so very little would get built. Nor do they realise that other property owners also have rights. Often they try to use the planning system to stop other having what they have themselves. People who have moved into an area may claim that having more homes will cause problems although they did not worry about those before they arrived themselves.

As an experienced plannner before opining on a case I may have to spend many hours in assessing the issues. Very few objectors do this or have the time and expertise to do so.

The need for decisions to be “evidence -based” is now accepted in many fields eg. medicine. However well-qualified and distinguished any party is, he/she must support his/her views with sound evidence. However schools have not really taught people to do this, to weigh-up “pros and cons” or to think creatively or even to realise there are interests other than their own.

It is wise not to express opinions on matters about which one knows little. I have seen objectors, including planners, made to look ignorant and foolish under cross-examination.

It is normal for most people to resist change. Many of our finest developments, including “listed” structures were strongly opposed when built. These included railway arches. Yet proposals to demolish these are now fiercely resisted.
A former president of the RIBA said that if a new building did not attract strong criticism he would think it not sufficiently innovative. A major problem is that many people, including some planners, lack the imagination to visualise how a new development would appear.

The Human Rights Act provides for protection of private property rights (Article 1 of the First Protocol and Artic;e 8 of the Convention. These limit the powers of public bodies to control private property use. Restrictions must serve a clear public purpose and be based on “laws”, not just opinions. There must be a “fair balance” between private and public interests and the latter cannot entirely over-ride the former.

In my long experiecnce many conflicts in planning, like those in other areas could be resolved by greater understanding on both sides and more imagination. Most professioal developers now carefully consider planning issues, with professional advice
before making proposals. Yet most objectors do not do the same.

Of course there are many cases where there are conflicting “public interests”. Wind-farms and power lines are an example. Even the environmental movement is strongly divided on these. National interests may conflict with local ones, as in the case of major infratructure projects. Many people want more prisons built, but not in their own areas.

Even at a local level there are conflicts. Building a new school or playground close to homes of children may please the majority and increase public safety. However it may not please those who live immediately adjacent.

Society is increasingly polarised, with differences in wealth and income far greater than for many decades. The job and housing prospects of many young people are far worse than those who came before them. The Planning System was instigated primarily to provide homes and jobs, but it has, in recent years, failed to do so. The Medical Offcer for Scotland has said that
it must have a key role in improving public health. Yet the latter is rarely mentioned in planning cases.

T he most disdavantaged people have very little say in decisions. Most objections are made by people who already enjoy
privileges and whose main concern is retaining these. In local elections many younger and poorer people do not vote.
The Planning System serves mainly the interesst of the better-off. Far too much time and money is spent on trivial iddues which have little or no public interest. Planners have long complained about their lack of power in relation to major concerns.

Organisations such as the National Trust and CPRE mainly focus on the interests of relatively affluent people.
They are very biassed and dishonest in their assessments. Claims about “concreting over the countryside”
are ludicrous. Even if all the homes needed were built in countryside they would cover only a tiny fraction of such
Only about 10% of England and 4% of Scotland is “built-up” Moreoever about half of urban areas is occupied by private gardens, parks, golfcourses etc. Concrete covers only a miniscule percentage of urban areas.

According to “Natural England” there is more wildlife and biodiversity in many towns and cities than in many tracts of countryside. “Green Belts” often include large areas of featureless and even dereclict land which could be greatly improved,
visually and environmentally, by appropriate development.

The presumption in favour of “sustainable development” is correct. What is needed is improved urban and landscape design.
There have been major advances in these areas , in response to problems identified. However, it seems that may objectors are not aware of these.

In truth the vast majority of proposals attract objections for a very small percentage of people in an area. Yet this writer seems to assume most people are opposed to development. The

I am teh vice chairman of Dunbar Sea Cadets and I am trying to get my voice heard with East Lothian council. There is a site on the edge of Dunbar which was phase one of the LaFarge quarry/cement works. It was common knowledge that teh site would be given to the community when work had finished. IT now seems that the land will be given over to the RSPB to manage. This will mean no community access to the lake. Access will be restricted and definately bo waterbased activities. There is a North West Quarry Committee which I had hoped to present to in December 2011 but they cancelled the meeting the night before. They said they would arrange another meeting early 2012. When I asked when the meeting would be I didn’t get a response. I have asked for plans/documents in regard to the RSPB proposal but I have been told there aren’t any. I just don’t understand how a decision can be made without any documentation. Please Help! Cheers Steve Hanmer

Agreed the developer-commissioned EIAs can be a problem, their certainly percieved as a problem by lots of people we’ve talked to. They’re also so thick and complex, as you have found, they are not necessarily useful. I know the Scot Govt is attempting to slim them down, and, I think, recognises one of the reasons they have grown is because the companies have an interest in very detailed reports.

Getting the council to commission the EIA’s would definately address the percieved conflict of interest, but admin heavy I imagine and would still require much input and info from the developer. Difficult one! Slimming them down to key issues so that it’s harder to bury the controvertial aspects would probably help.