Ft Wm, Inv & Tor CC talk:About: Difference between revisions

One possible view is that ONLY deficiencies in the FINAL draft, including the process of producing that draft, should enable a planning authority to invalidate a Local Place Plan against the wishes of the community body that has prepared it. But a stricter view is that deficiencies in EARLIER drafts, including the process of producing those drafts, might rightly enable a planning authority to invalidate even the FINAL draft of a Local Place Plan against the wishes of the community body that has prepared it.

(A plausible example of a process deficiency might perhaps be this:- failing to actively seek the views of disabled or elderly residents at a sufficiently early stage in the preparation process to significantly influence the final draft of the Place Plan.)

[ Aside: aA few of the ScotGov consultation questions useemploy a very specific legalism: "to have regard to (something)," which (FYI) imposes a duty to (a) be familiar with, to (b) be aware of divergences from, and to (c) be able to provide a reason (or reasons) for each divergence from it. On the other hand, the bar set for such reasons is not particularly high: appropriately 'clear', 'proper', and 'legitimate' reasons need not be 'good', 'cogent', or 'compelling', for instance. Specifically, the English/Welsh High Court has found that "to have regard to" something obliges a body to "have and give clear reasons" for any departure from it. Furthermore, these clear reasons must "objectively be proper reasons, or legitimate reasons". However, to say that the reasons must be "good", "cogent" or "compelling" would be raising the bar "far higher than is appropriate in this context." (in Regina v Schools Adjudicator [2015] EWHC 1012 (Admin)). My understanding is that so far Scottish case law has (soyet far)to followeddeviate from this precedent (but give it time). ]