The examination process is now complete
We submitted our Proposed Local Development Plan to the Scottish Ministers on the 6th December 2015 and requested an examination of the unresolved representations to the plan. Two reporters were appointed by Scottish Ministers and the examination commenced on the 19th January 2016. This is now complete and an examination report, which sets out the reporters recommended modifications to the plan has been published. This can be viewed on the Scottish Government’s Department for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) website or viewed and downloaded.
We received 139 responses in total which spanned many issues including detailed policy issues along with comments on our individual ‘allocated’ sites. We have summarised and grouped all unresolved representations into a series of ‘issues’ under three main themes which match the structure of the Proposed Plan. We have responded to each of these issues with a recommendation which is ether to make a minor modification or no modification to the plan.
The National Park Authority will consider the recommended modifications to the plan at its next meeting on the 24th October 2016 and decide whether to approve the post examination modifications that have been recommended by the reporters’. These recommendations are largely binding and only in limited circumstances can the Park Authority choose to decline these. The plan will then be amended and the process to adopt it will commence.
If you made a representation to the proposed local development plan you will be notified directly by the DPEA. Any queries regarding the examination process should be made directly to the DPEA at:-
If you wish to find out more about the next stages and adoption process for the Local Development Plan please contact one of the LIVEPark team – Susan, Kirsty or Thom on 01389 722600 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
We received 139 responses in total to the Proposed Local Development Plan. These spanned many issues including detailed policy issues along with comments on our individual ‘allocated’ sites. We summarised and grouped all of these – referred to as unresolved representations – into a series of ‘issues’ under three main themes which match the structure of the Proposed Plan. We responded to each of these issues with a recommendation which is ether to make a minor modification or no modification to the plan.
The reporters’ then looked at the unresolved responses (our summary of these as well as original individual representations) and considered how we have taken these into account in our recommended response to each issue before deciding whether the recommendations are fair and appropriate. The reporters’ then prepared their own independent conclusions and recommendations in relation to each issue. The examination process included a series of site inspections as well as further requests for information in relation to several issues.