A comment on Michael Pacione\u2019s \u2018The power of public participation in local planning in Scotland: the case of conflict over residential development in the metropolitan green belt\u2019

Abstract

Michael Pacione’s article published in this journal in 2014 correctly notes that the Planning (Scotland) etc. Act 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’) has, contrary to the Scottish Government’s claimed intentions, enormously restricted the opportunities for communities to engage in the planning system, resulting in widespread disillusion and resentment. However, Pacione makes a number of notable factual errors and, to use a good Scots term, seems to get himself into a bit of a ‘guddle’ (a messy confusion) in failing to identify the fundamental distinction between the statutory procedures governing consultation on, and adoption of, local development plans and those governing the submission and determination of planning applications. The purpose of this commentary is to identify and correct the errors in the Pacione paper and, in so doing, shed some light on the operation of the Scottish land use planning system pre and post 2006. After that I revisit the examination of the East Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2 (‘EDLP2’) in 2011 (which provides the material for much of Pacione’s case study on the Redmoss Farm site in Milton of Campsie near Glasgow) (East Dunbartonshire Council 2012). Finally, I bring the position up to date by examining the Reporters’ examination into the subsequent 2015 East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (‘EDLDP’) (East Dunbartonshire Council 2015). In passing, I should add that I am not particularly familiar with the East Dunbartonshire area and I have never visited Redmoss Farm. My research into the scrutiny of the two local development plans (‘LDPs’) is based on published documents available through the internet.