This response has been submitted to The Scottish Executive in response to its white paper: Modernising the Planning System. The white paper is available online from the Scottish Executive website.

Introduction
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) is the representative body for hillwalkers, climbers and off-piste skiers and receives core grant funding from sportscotland in recognition of this status. We are a membership organisation with over 2,000 individual members plus 130 affiliated clubs that contain over 7,000 members. Our Committee structure is entirely voluntary and appointments are the result of a democratic process. The professional staff complement is made up of four posts at our Perth office.

Our work involves a great deal of contact with the planning system in that we work to protect the mountain environment and make regular comment on proposed developments in the mountainous areas of Scotland. We therefore have concerns about the planning system and views on the current White Paper that we wish to express in this consultation response.

The Foreword to the White Paper begins by stating that the “Executive's top priority is promoting sustainable economic growth to create a modern and vibrant Scotland”, which is a commendable opening line, but in commenting on this document we feel it is worth remembering that wrong decisions taken as a result of a planning system that lacks scrutiny and sufficient public involvement can severely harm our economy, as well as lead to damage to our treasured world-class landscapes. We have concerns that this document contains proposed changes that we fear could lead to wrong planning decisions being taken and there being consequences that would take Scotland in the opposite direction to being regarded as modern and vibrant.

Furthermore, the introductory line to the Executive Summary claims that the “White Paper sets out the way forward for Scotland's planning system”. There is a certain “fait accompli” ring to this sentence and the impression is given that this is a legitimising exercise for a way forward that has already been decided. We hope this is not the case and that this consultation exercise is genuinely looking for public engagement with a view to influencing the Executive's thinking, and developing a workable and efficient Planning Act that will contribute to Scotland being regarded as modern and vibrant.

National Developments
The MCofS does not agree with the Executive's proposals for National Developments. In our opinion the opportunity for a public inquiry, which is a basic element of the planning system, should not be removed from so called national developments. Public inquiries offer an important opportunity to scrutinise the need for, and impact of, proposed developments of all sizes, and a vital opportunity for examining the details of a proposed scheme will be lost if this fundamental change to the planning system is allowed to be introduced.

Public consultation on the National Planning Framework does not provide an adequate alternative to a public inquiry on a major development proposal. A passing mention of a potential development in a government document is a poor alternative to the level of scrutiny that a public inquiry would offer. Whilst the public inquiry system is admittedly far from perfect, and mistakes can be made even after that level of scrutiny, we believe the public inquiry route does provide a form of investigation that is robust and should be available at all levels of the planning system.

Furthermore, we have concerns that the introduction of a National Developments category will provide developers with a hiding place to aim for. If developers can squeeze their proposed project into this category they will be able to remove what they perceive as the threat of interference from a public inquiry. This should not be allowed to happen.

In the Minister for Communities' Introduction he states that he wants “to secure a planning system that….is fast, inclusive and transparent; building trust between communities and developers”. The fast tracking of national developments through the removal of the opportunity for public inquiries does not strike us as a way of building trust between communities and developers.

Third Party Right of Appeal
Like many other individuals and organisations campaigning for a third party right of appeal, the MCofS believes that the moderniastion of the planning system should lead to a level of fairness and equality between the various parties that is currently lacking in the current system. Reducing the developers' right to appeal from 6 months to 3 months does not create a feeling of fairness and equality unless it is matched by an increase in the third parties' right of appeal from 0 months to 3 months.

We believe that a third party right of appeal would level the playing field, provide public groups with a means of questioning a decision in the same way that a developer can question a decision; and that the standard of applications should improve as developers would be likely to show more regard for public concerns about their proposals.

Permitted Development Rights
The White Paper discusses the issue of Minor Developments and within this section makes proposals for reviewing permitted development rights. Whilst there may be scope for reducing the burden on planning authorities in respect of minor developments such as householder applications, there is an entirely separate issue that we believe requires to be addressed under planning reforms. An area of significant and increasing damage to our mountain landscapes is being caused by actions and structures that are allowed under permitted development rights. Bulldozed hill tracks are of particular concern to us and their impact on landscape is far greater than any dormer window or garage door.

There may be scope for increasing efficiency in one area of permitted development rights, but in terms of protecting mountain and other landscapes, we would like to see a fundamental review of permitted development rights and for the planning system to give far greater protection to Scotland's mountains. Rural landscapes provide Scotland with its beauty, which in turn has created its attraction to visitors, who generate significant levels of economic income that is contributing to the creation of the modern and vibrant Scotland that is envisioned in the Foreword to the White Paper. We believe that mountain landscapes in particular should be offered far better protection before the qualities that sustain our tourism economy suffer further damage.

Restrictions on Repeat Applications
We welcome the comments on restricting repeat planning applications, but feel that the powers and timescales should be greater than those proposed in the White Paper. For example, we would suggest that the time period for not allowing a repeat application should be 10 years rather than 2, and that in special circumstances in areas of the highest landscape quality there should be a category for the Scottish Executive to place an area out of bounds for any development in perpetuity. Repeat applications and development proposals in the finest of our mountain areas do lead to opponents suffering exhaustion and other health problems, and we would like to see recognition of the qualities of these top category landscapes being protected for all time.

Conclusion
We share the First Minister's and Deputy First Minister's vision of a modern and vibrant Scotland, but feel that this should be achieved through developing a fairer and more inclusive planning system, whilst always remembering that the system is there to protect our natural and cultural heritage and to make our lives better, as opposed to making life easier for developers.

Mountaineering Council of Scotland
16 September 2005