Ten year West Lothian plan raises concern as council given just weeks to agree
Concern has been raised over the amount of time West Lothian councillors have been given to consider a ten-year planning blueprint for the area.
Councillors may have just over a month before they are asked to agree to a 1,000-plus pages draft of evidence to submit to the Scottish Government for a new Local Development Plan.
The plan is a guide to what happens in the county between 2028 and 2038, and covers housing development, infrastructure, transport, and communities.
But the initial hefty document brought more questions and criticism than answers this week.
Linlithgow' Lib Dem councillor Sally Pattle told a meeting of the Economy Community Empowerment and Wealth Building PDSP that she had 'serious concerns' that councillors would have enough time ' to get this right.'
The document - 1059 pages long - is the combined two years of evidence gathered which has to be presented to the Division of Planning and Environmental Appeals DPEA to be ' gate checked' as the foundation of the next Local Development Plan (LDP).
This broad brush approach to evidence gathering threw up anomalies and outdated information which the SNP's Andrew Miller highlighted, including one suggestion that three buses served Livingston Village when in fact none do.
Only half way through the meeting did councillors find out that council officers had based their ward evidence on community council boundaries, which threw up anomalies such as bus services.
Councillors also picked over the lack of details in individual sections of the report demanding more detail be included before a final draft goes to a meeting of the full council and then on to the DPEA.
Councillor Susan Manion stressed on several occasions that this was the first draft of the document and was open to change and improvement.
All councillors moved to praise officers for the amount of work that has gone into the first draft.
Councillor Pattle said: 'I am now seriously concerned as I have sat here for the past ninety minutes, it's been revealed that we are supposed to go to full council to agree this and that its five weeks time.
'I was under the impression that when it went to full council it would be after recess in September, giving us months to prepare for this.'
Addressing the ranks of planning officers seated in the Livingston chamber, councillor Pattle continued: 'I appreciate your time today and I'm sorry that we have come across as hyper local but that's our job.
'We are here to scrutinise on behalf of our wards to make sure this incredibly important document is right when it goes to the gate check.
'I am now extremely concerned that we are not going to be given adequate opportunities to do that.'
And she warned: 'Developers are going to be watching us like hawks. they are going to be using this as the basis for development for the next ten years. We have to get this right. I would like some reassurance that we are going to be given enough time to do that.'
Fellow Linlithgow Councillor Pauline Orr, SNP, said: ' It's a huge piece of work and we are the face of our communities so we absolutely have to get it right.' She praised the 'amazing' work of the officers in producing the 1059 pages of evidence.
Director of Planning Craig McCorriston moved to reassure the meeting that he was happy to meet councillors and take additional information from them to correct inaccuracies.
He said that the draft evidence had to be ready to present to the DPEA by May 2028. The process is defined by government legislation but he conceded that the time frame for the council to prepare the draft was 'tight and we do have to work at speed.'
He added: 'We have opened up to scrutiny today in a way which we hope is helpful to members and will engage further in the coming week to go through matters of concern or errors. Then we will ask the Provost to progress to a special meeting of the full council.'
He stressed: 'If we get this wrong it is going to independent scrutiny and the DPEA Reporter will send it back to us if we have not gathered enough evidence. I'm pretty confident that we are just about there but am happy to take that extra few days to go through things with members.'
Councillor Willie Boyle said: ' I'm looking forward to further opportunities to discuss it when it comes to actually putting the plan together. Power to your elbow I know we are up against a time schedule here and I fully accept that. We are where we are with that. We need to get it done.'
Depute SNP group leader Pauline Stafford said: 'I'd like to acknowledge the work that's gone into this report and I hope members of the public will take time to read through it as well.'
Councillor Stafford added: ' I sit on the Development Management [Committee] and the reason I do is because I think it has such a vital role to play in all we do in council.
"This is what builds strong thriving communities. Planning is often, for elected members, misunderstood and for the public is often mistrusted, and as much transparency we can provide and show communities we have actually listened is vital.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
9 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why is the SQA so quiet about students cheating with AI?
'We have no further comment to make.' It's a statement that every journalist has received plenty of times. Over the years investigating and reporting on Scottish education, both during and well before my time at The Herald, I've had variations of that statement from all sorts of bodies including councils, regulators, private companies, public organisations, and the Scottish Government. The message between the lines is simple: we're not answering these questions unless you find a way to make us. Sometimes this is what you get in response to follow up questions after receiving an initial response to an enquiry; other times it comes when you try to challenge them for ignoring some or all of an initial query. The latest instance – at least at the time of writing – involves the soon-to-be rebranded SQA, Scotland's only exam board and the body responsible for issuing exam results to students in a couple of weeks. The topic? Students using AI to cheat in their coursework. Read more Lessons to Learn: Here's the background: a teacher and current SQA marker recently approached us with some pretty serious concerns, alleging that they and others had been discouraged from reporting all instances of suspected AI use by students, and suggesting that the issue was effectively being covered up. If true, this would undermine the fairness of this year's National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher results, and raise major questions for SQA leadership. So we approached SQA. We put the accusations to them to give them the opportunity to respond, and also asked for some specific and obviously relevant information: In total, how many scripts were flagged for potential use of AI by markers? (and what is this as a proportion of total scripts) How many of those were investigated and judged to show signs of AI use? What action was taken against those who were found to have cheated using AI? We also asked if the [[SQA]] would commit to an investigation of the claims being made, particularly given previous concerns about the [[SQA]]'s exam marking – remember the months-long Higher History debacle last year, for example? Here's the response we received, attributed to an SQA spokesperson: 'We provide principal assessors with guidance on the use of AI before marker meetings to help them prepare. Markers are told to raise all potential malpractice concerns during marking, including the use of AI, all of which are investigated.' So the exam board is disputing the accusation that markers were told not to report all concerns, but what about that other information? Well, when we asked if they would be responding to our other questions, we were told that they had 'no further comment to make'. So now we have to try to make this publicly-funded body answer these simple questions. One option would be to ask more specific questions, and give more information from markers, but this would risk revealing details of our sources. But teachers tend to be worried about being identified by the SQA and facing punitive actions for raising concerns, and to be honest that's a pretty reasonable concern on their part, so that's not a road we would go down. Which means that we need to use Freedom of Information requests. This – as the [[SQA]] knows – means it will be weeks before we might get the information we're asking for, and that's assuming they manage to answer on time (which isn't even remotely guaranteed) and don't try to withhold material using some of the clauses in FOI law. Crucially, the information is very unlikely to have been made available when exam results are released at the start of August. All of which is ironic, because just a couple of weeks ago the SQA was telling the press that the appointment of their new Chief Executive, Nick Page, 'marks the start of a new era of collaboration, transparency, and opportunity'. We have now submitted several FOI requests to the SQA, asking for the information they have so far refused to provide, as well as other material related to potential cheating through AI use. We will, as ever, let you know what we find, but it might be a while. We've also asked Mr Page to sit down for an interview with us, which would give him the chance to explain how he is going to deliver on promises of transparency and openness from an organisation that has historically pursued the opposite approach. We hope to bring you that soon as well.
Leader Live
10 hours ago
- Leader Live
Ombudsman clears Wrexham councillor who challenged LDP
The independent Ombudsman has ruled that Plaid Cymru group leader Cllr Marc Jones did not breach the Code of Conduct by jointly initiating legal proceedings in Wrexham Council's name with two other members of the council. As a result, it has ruled no further action should be taken. 'The overwhelming feeling is of relief after waiting for 20 months,' said Cllr Jones. 'This feels like the end of a chapter, even if it's not the end of the entire saga surrounding the Local Development Plan (LDP). We stood up for what we believed was the right thing for Wrexham communities and the right of councillors and local democracy to be heard. 'Others didn't feel the same way and tried every way possible to silence us. Ultimately it didn't work and the courts, police and now the Ombudsman have found in our favour. 'It's time to move on and get the LDP withdrawn so that we can ensure we have a plan going forward that works for Wrexham and its communities.' That could happen next Wednesday when an extraordinary meeting of Wrexham Council has been called to debate a notice of motion asking Welsh Government to formally withdraw the LDP. Related reading: The LDP is the strategic plan that outlines where development is appropriate within Wrexham County Borough. It was considered a statutory duty for all Welsh Council's to adopt an LDP until Cllr Jones led a challenge against Wrexham's plan. The opposition to the plan stemmed from what Cllr Jones called the 'excessive allocation of housing on greenfield sites'. That challenge went all the way to the UK Supreme Court who ruled that the authority did not have to adopt the LDP. Currently planning committee can still use the LDP as a guide when deciding applications, but if withdrawn it will fall back to the outdated Unitary Development Plan. During the legal battle, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman that Cllr Jones and his supporters had breached the code of conduct for councillors by beginning legal action on the council's behalf. However, the Ombudsman accepted the explanation that Cllr Jones had taken the action to 'uphold and defend the democratic decisions of the council in April and June 2023 to reject the LDP'. It also accepted that while acting outside the council's usual legal framework could be considered bringing the council into disrepute, stating: 'the factual context of the Member's conduct and subsequent series of events provides strong mitigating factors which must be duly considered when deciding whether further action is required, in the public interest. 'I have considered that the council's statutory officers were acting in good faith and on the external legal advice received at the time, did not take steps to uphold the council/members' decisions not to adopt the draft LDP. 'However, as confirmed by the more recent Court of Appeal decision instituted by the Member, it appears that the officers' position, that the members were obliged to adopt the draft LDP, was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. 'The crowdfunding campaign established to take further legal challenges against the adoption of the draft LDP received strong public support. Because of this, I have concluded that any impact on the public's perception of the member's conduct – and accordingly the public interest factors and considerations relevant to this complaint – significantly changed during the course of the investigation. 'For these reasons, I do not believe that any further action is required in the public interest.' Cllr Jones said the decision drew a line under the debate and added he wanted to move beyond the legal argument. 'People don't want urban sprawl,' said Cllr Jones. 'They don't want huge super-estates with no community facilities, they want improved public services, genuinely affordable homes, better transport links and the focus of any developments to be on derelict land and empty properties. 'That's the focus for me now – looking forward to improve Wrexham rather than looking back in anger.'
The Herald Scotland
10 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Let trans women into women's shelters, say SNP ministers
But the suggestion drew strong criticism from campaigners, who said the Scottish Government was misrepresenting the law. 'Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women',' Trina Budge of For Women Scotland told The Herald. READ MORE Three months ago, the UK's highest court ruled that 'women' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 referred to biological sex rather than gender identity. The court case was brought by FWS after they challenged the Scottish Government's guidance on the definition of 'woman' in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the commission issued draft guidance on a range of topics, including how single-sex services can be lawfully provided, when trans people can be excluded, and when organisations might request a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate. The draft said any service offered to 'women and trans women' is not a single-sex service under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful discrimination against those of the opposite sex. The EHRC later opened a consultation on the draft to help formulate an updated Code of Practice. The commission said it received more than 50,000 responses. Final guidance had been expected before Parliament broke for summer earlier this week, but the EHRC said last week it would be published later in the year. For Women Scotland won the Supreme Court in April (Image: PA) The Scottish Government quietly published its response to the consultation on Friday afternoon. Ministers raised concerns that the commission's draft code placed too much emphasis on when trans people can be excluded from services, and not enough on how services can remain inclusive within the law. 'We consider that it would be helpful to provide illustrative examples within the Code of Practice to provide guidance on how a service provider may lawfully implement an inclusive approach,' the Government said. 'This would be particularly helpful in situations where a service provider has identified a need that exists for both biological women and trans women, for example in relation to those who have experienced domestic abuse, homelessness or trafficking. 'Without this clarity, providers may simply stop offering any services to trans people due to concerns about legal risk.' They also warned that, following the judgment, some trans people had chosen to 'remove themselves from public life' out of fear of being turned away from services. In its submission, the Scottish Government also said it was also concerned about what it described as 'social policing' of someone's sex. 'We note that the impact of the guidance may lead to situations where some members of the public will take it upon themselves to judge appearances and assume someone's sex based on their perception of that person's sex or gender identity. 'This sense of distrust in others and social policing of bodies is detrimental not only for trans and non-binary people, but for those who are born male or female who may not fit into society's current expectations of what a man or woman looks like, which change over time, and in different contexts and places.' The response also called for advice on how to apply the updated definition of legal sex to workplace facilities, and for consideration of the impact of the code on intersex people. Ms Budge said: 'The Scottish Government still woefully misunderstands the Supreme Court judgment on how the Equality Act works. "Services are either single-sex or open to everyone, and there are no circumstances where it is legally possible to provide a service for 'biological women and trans women'. 'We note that in pushing for this option, the Government has dropped its previous legal argument that a man needs a GRC to access a women's service and reverted to, once again, looking for ways to include men in women's services on a self-ID basis. 'Women who have suffered domestic abuse or trafficking do not wish to be put in sleeping accommodation with males for very good reasons of privacy and safety, and it is beyond our understanding why the Government keeps trying to insist otherwise." Lucy Hunter Blackburn from the MBM policy collective said: 'The response suggests that the Scottish Government has learnt little from the past few years. "It remains fundamentally unsympathetic to the rights and needs of women as a sex, and strongly wedded to defining 'women' as a group that must include some men. 'As a result, it appears to misunderstand both the judgment and the role of the EHRC. It still seems to believe, wrongly, that managing single-sex services and spaces must involve 'balancing' the rights of women against those of a sub-set of men. 'It is resisting clarity in favour of complication, and in doing so providing poor leadership to all Scottish public bodies who now just need to make the law work on the ground.'
