We visited the site to show solidarity and support the campaigners and to see for ourselves what exactly is at stake.

Our trustee, Cat Mackay, an experienced specialist in tree verification and ecological assessment, is actively campaigning to protect veteran trees in Kingsmeadows, Peebles. In a series of short videos filmed in the Hollybush woodland at the Dykebar Hospital site in Paisley, she demonstrates clearly why these trees qualify as veteran—highlighting a significant oversight by the developer’s consultants.

In one video, she focuses on an individual veteran tree,  identifying structural characteristics such as girth, hollowing, deadwood habitat, and epiphytic growth that are widely recognised indicators of age and ecological continuity.

In another recording, she highlights an unusual rowan tree whose form, growth pattern, and structural development suggest long establishment within a competitive woodland canopy.

In a further video, she addresses the Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) and its role in planning decisions. Drawing on her experience in tree verification, about how ordinary people can be trained to identify ancient woodland.

We recommend these videos for all planners and developers to help get a better understanding of ancient woodland and veteran trees.

Taken together, these videos provide more than visual documentation. They offer an applied perspective grounded in ecological assessment practice, reinforcing the argument that woodland value cannot be fully captured through desk-based classification alone, whilst identifying important trees is not rocket science!

Calling on Planners To Get Into The Field and Learn!

As Planning Democracy has explored this case in detail, many planning decisions are being made without sufficient ecological expertise to properly interpret what is being assessed. While planners are skilled in policy and procedure, there is often a gap when it comes to recognising and evaluating complex ecological features on the ground, such as long-established or ancient woodland systems.

This points to a need for planners to spend more time in the field, working alongside ecological professionals, developing greater proficiency in reading landscapes directly, rather than relying primarily on ecological consultant reports commissioned by developers, – a rather inexplicably routine and accepted part of the planning process,- which are produced within the scope of a client brief and therefore reflect the parameters, focus, and constraints set by the developer.

The planning system relies heavily on tree surveys, but trees that are perfectly healthy and viable are often labelled as “low quality”, which is then used to justify removal during design and planning. They fundamentally misunderstand ecology and the importance of older and dying trees.

It is essential that there is a clearer and more widespread understanding within planning practice that habitats such as ancient woodland are not replaceable through tree planting or landscaping schemes. While new planting has value for biodiversity and climate goals, it does not recreate the ecological continuity, soil structure, species assemblages, or historical depth of ancient woodland. Treating these habitats as interchangeable risks fundamentally misunderstanding their irreplaceable nature, and can lead to decisions that result in permanent ecological loss under the assumption that it can be offset or replicated elsewhere.

The group who have been camped out since February are not there for vandalism or violence. They are there because they climbed trees to protect them.

They climbed to protect what they believe is one of Scotland’s most threatened habitats ancient woodland.

Ancient woodland in Scotland covers a very small portion of the land, with estimates ranging around 30,000 to 59,000 hectares of remaining, high-quality ancient, semi-natural woodland, roughly 1% to 2% of the total land area.

From Sanctuary to Clearance Site

The land in question, part of the former Dykebar Hospital estate, was once a place of quiet significance. For those experiencing complex mental health needs, it offered something beyond institutional care: space, stillness, and connection to nature.

That landscape has been fundamentally altered.

In the course of enabling development, thousands of trees have been removed and hectares of woodland cleared. What remains is not simply a “site under construction,” but a profoundly transformed environment, one that many local residents now describe as unrecognisable. Dog walkers who once moved through shaded paths now navigate expanses of stumps and exposed ground. The emotional impact of that loss is not incidental; it is part of the story.

This is not nostalgia. It is disruption.

Environmental psychology has long established that access to established natural environments contributes to reduced stress, improved mood, and overall mental wellbeing. But beyond the academic framing, there is a simpler truth: people form attachments to places. When those places are abruptly and irreversibly changed, the emotional consequences are real and measurable, even if they are rarely quantified in planning reports.

And yet, within the planning system, these impacts are frequently marginalised. They are difficult to express in the formal language of policy. They do not fit neatly into ecological metrics or economic models. As a result, they are often acknowledged in passing, if at all before being set aside in favour of considerations deemed more “material.”

But what is more material than the lived experience of the people who inhabit a place?

In this case, the emotional response is not a reaction to change in general, it is a response to a specific kind of loss: the removal of something understood to be both valuable and irreplaceable. That distinction matters. People are not resisting development per se; they are responding to what they perceive as unnecessary and avoidable harm.

This is precisely what has driven some residents beyond participation in formal consultation processes and into direct action.

It is within this context that a small number of campaigners made the decision to occupy the remaining woodland, erect tents and maintaining a continuous presence. Their actions are not easily dismissed as symbolic protest. They reflect a deeper conclusion: that conventional avenues of engagement have been exhausted.

A Planning Decision, and Its Fault Lines

In March 2023, planning permission was granted on appeal for a development of 603 houses on the site (Ref PPA-350-2038). The decision followed the rejection of the application by local councillors, who had concluded that the scale of tree removal would result in unacceptable environmental harm.

The appeal conducted by a Reporter in the Department for Planning and Environmental Appeals reversed that position.

Critically, the Reporter’s decision was issued shortly after the adoption of Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), a key planning document, which had been widely welcomed by environmental groups and ourselves at Planning Democracy, for placing significantly greater weight on the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change.

Policy 6, in particular, provides strong and unambiguous protection for ancient woodland:

Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their ecological condition.

The Reporter explicitly acknowledged that NPF4 was now the primary policy framework. He also recognised the importance of ancient woodland and veteran trees, and even identified that the loss of a veteran tree placed the proposal in tension with policy.

And yet, permission was granted.

The reasoning rested heavily on the site’s allocation within the Local Development Plan, leading to the conclusion that the proposal “accords overall” with the development plan, and that no material considerations justified refusal.

But this conclusion rests on an incomplete evidential picture.

At the time the decision was made, critical information about the true nature of the woodland was either absent, overlooked, or mischaracterised. The ecological surveys underpinning the application failed to identify the site as ancient woodland and significantly underestimated the number and distribution of veteran trees. What was presented to the Reporter, therefore, was not a neutral or fully accurate account of the site, but a partial one, one that materially influenced how policy was applied.

This matters because planning decisions are only as sound as the evidence on which they rely. Policy 6 of NPF4 is unequivocal in its protection of ancient woodland. But that protection can only operate if the woodland is properly recognised in the first place. If a site of ancient origin is instead framed as scrub or low-value woodland, the policy is not so much overridden as it is never meaningfully engaged.

In that context, the apparent conflict identified by the Reporter, the loss of a single veteran tree, may represent only a fraction of the actual impact. Subsequent findings by campaigners and independent ecologists suggest a far more extensive presence of veteran trees and clear indicators of long-established woodland ecology. Had this evidence been available, accepted, or rigorously tested at the time, it is difficult to argue that it would not have carried significant weight in the planning balance.

Instead, the decision proceeded on the basis of what was, in effect, a diminished understanding of the site’s ecological value.

The result is a troubling paradox: a policy framework that strongly protects ancient woodland, applied within a decision-making process that failed to fully identify where that protection should apply.

The Woodland That Was Mischaracterised

At the heart of the problem lies a fundamental question around the woodland.  

Developers’ ecological assessments, carried out between 2018 and 2022, evolved in their description but remained consistent in their overall framing it:

• Initially described as semi-natural broadleaved woodland plantation in origin
• Later described as Gorse, ash, hawthorn scrub an area of 1.3 hectares of medium sensitivity
• In an updated report in 2020 semi-natural broad-leaved woodland “largely to be retained”

These classifications matter. They shape both the perceived value of the site and the policy protections that apply to it.

However, campaigners, working with independent ecologists, have presented a markedly different account.

Kirsty Menzies, a member of the Save Paisley’s Green Space group, undertook a detailed and methodical assessment of the woodland. Drawing on field observations, historical mapping, and ecological indicators, her report concludes unequivocally that the Hollybush woodland is ancient in origin and therefore irreplaceable.

Among the findings:

• Identification of at least 13 veteran trees at the time of writing (now understood to be at least 20)
• Evidence of long continuity of woodland cover. Roy’s Lowland map of 1755 shows Hollybush on the eastern edge of the wooded glen (along the Tod Burn) and the 1858 Ordnance Survey map of Renfrewshire shows the woodland around the Hollybush settlements.
• Notably present is a profusion of ancient woodland indicators such as Greater Stitchwort, Sanicle, native Bluebell, and Pignut. The fact that at least 14 of these species have been found on this small site, many in profusion, indicates that it is ancient woodland.  

Notably, none of the developer-commissioned surveys identified the site as ancient woodland, nor did they record the full extent of veteran trees present.

The Limits of the Inventory—and the Consequences

One reason it was not classified as ancient woodland is the absence from NatureScot’s Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI). However, this line of reasoning is explicitly cautioned against within NatureScot’s own guidance.

The AWI does not include woodlands under two hectares, a category into which Hollybush falls. As such, its omission is not evidence of absence, but a known limitation of the dataset.

NatureScot advises that woodland assessment must go beyond the inventory, requiring:

• On-the-ground investigation for biological and archaeological indicators
• Examination of historical mapping, including Roy maps (c.1750) and early Ordnance Survey editions

Kirsty’s report follows precisely this approach and, in doing so, reaches a conclusion that, if accepted, would have materially altered the planning balance.

Because if this site is ancient woodland, then under NPF4 Policy 6, its loss should not be supported.

Evidence That Arrived Too Late

A central frustration for campaigners is not simply that their evidence was disputed, but that it was not meaningfully considered.

Kirsty’s report, submitted as evidence to the DPEA in 2023, was deemed too late to influence the Reporter’s decision.

This raises a deeper procedural question: what happens when significant new evidence emerges after key decision points have passed?

In this case, the answer appears to be very little.

Despite the report constituting what many would consider a material consideration, potentially redefining the ecological status of the site, the decision remained unchanged. The planning process, once in motion, proved resistant to revision.

Calls for Intervention—and Institutional Inertia

Save Paisley’s Green Space has since called on Renfrewshire Council to use its powers under Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to revoke or modify the existing permission.

Such powers exist precisely for circumstances where new information or changing conditions render a previous decision questionable.

The argument is straightforward: the ecological significance of the woodland was not fully understood at the time of approval, and the long-term consequences of its loss have therefore not been properly weighed.

To date, the council has declined to act.

A Modest Adjustment

It is important to emphasise that campaigners are not seeking to halt development entirely.

Their proposal is targeted and proportionate: a reduction of approximately 3% in the number of planned houses around 20 units to allow the retention of the remaining woodland.

In planning terms, this is a relatively minor adjustment.

In ecological terms, it is the difference between preservation and permanent loss.

A System Under Strain

This case exposes broader tensions within the planning system.

On paper, policies have evolved to recognise the urgency of the nature and climate crises. NPF4 represents a significant shift in that direction. Yet the application of those policies are constrained by ineffective processes and by a system too focussed on delivering housing or economic growth at any cost.

There is an inherent imbalance and ineffectiveness in how evidence is generated and assessed. Developers commission their own ecological surveys, which are largely taken at face value by planners. Communities, often with limited resources, must respond reactively frequently under tight timelines, often expected to comment on documents not even published on planning portals. Their comments on surveys and assessments are frequently dismissed.

When these significant flaws in the process prevent new, credible evidence from being incorporated, the system risks prioritising procedural certainty over substantive accuracy. Community action and input is viewed as problematic and time consuming in a system driven by targets to deliver within tight timescales.

In previous decades there is evidence that planners did behave more as community advocates, they were a more radical breed. Over time, planning has become more procedural, planning is professionalised and privatised, more reliant on formal inputs, and with the focus on delivering economic growth has emasculated the profession into a tick box bureaucracy intent on generating approvals rather than good outcomes. In that context, planners are less able, or less willing, to reopen fundamental questions once a process has advanced, even where new or missing evidence emerges that could materially change the outcome.

The Hollybush case sits squarely within that tension: a system that is formally evidence-led, but procedurally rigid; policy-rich, but heavily dependent on who gets to define what counts as “valid” evidence, and when.

The result is a decision that appears internally consistent within the framework of the development plan, but which may not reflect the full ecological reality on the ground, or the weight that reality would carry under a fully informed application of NPF4.

Why the Trees

Against this backdrop, the decision to occupy the woodland takes on a different character.

It is not simply an act of protest. It is a response to a perceived failure of process.

When objections are raised but discounted, when evidence is gathered but excluded, when policy appears strong but proves flexible in application, some people conclude that the only remaining form of intervention is physical presence.

And that is how protest comes about.. They take over a space they believe should never have been placed at risk.

These are not professional activists or distant campaigners. They are local residents, people with ordinary lives, work commitments, families, and responsibilities who have found themselves drawn into an extraordinary situation. Their presence in the trees is sustained, physically demanding, and legally precarious. It involves exposure to weather, uncertainty, and the constant worry of enforcement action or court process.

What is often overlooked is the level of personal commitment this represents. Occupying a site is not symbolic in any superficial sense. It is physically and psychologically taxing, requiring coordination, resilience, and a willingness to absorb significant personal risk in order to maintain a protective presence over a place they believe is being irreversibly damaged.

That level of commitment does not arise lightly. It is typically the endpoint of a long process of engagement, objection letters, participation in consultations, submission of evidence, attendance at meetings, and attempts to work within formal planning channels. In this case, those avenues were pursued extensively.

The decision to protest at this level reflects a belief that those channels have not adequately reflected what is at stake: not only the ecological value of the woodland, but also its social and emotional significance, and the consequences of its loss for both present and future communities.

Seen in that light, the people in the trees are not simply obstructing development. They are attempting, at significant personal cost, to prevent what they understand to be the irreversible loss of an ancient and irreplaceable ecosystem that has not been fully recognised within formal decision-making.

Their actions sit at the point where procedural systems, ecological reality, and lived experience no longer align.

What Remains

The future of the Hollybush woodland is now set for certain destruction following today’s court decision.

The developers Cala, Bellway, and Barratt Homes retain the ability to amend their plans, to exclude the ancient woodland. The council retains powers to amend the planning application, powers it has so far chosen not to exercise.

Meanwhile, this small group of individuals who sought to protect this valued natural space are left watching on, powerless as the planning system once again fails to safeguard an ancient woodland—shaped over centuries of ecological continuity, complex in its interdependence, and fundamentally irreplaceable. Once lost, it cannot be recreated within any meaningful human timescale.

The question, then, is not only why they ended up in the trees.

It is whether they should ever have needed to.

To support the group you can go to https://www.facebook.com/savepaisleysgreenspace

Veteran tree at what3words ///shady.hiking.pigs

Wednesday 25 February 7-8.30pm online

Fill in this form to sign up.

Freedom of Information is one tool in the box which you can use to help your campaign. This legislation puts a duty on public bodies to make certain information accessible to the public on request. 

We will hear from Preslava Todorova of the Environmental Rights Centre Scotland, who leads on their Freedom of Information work. Preslava will explain how to effectively draft Freedom of Information requests to obtain the information you need, how to challenge and appeal decisions, and the role of the Information Commissioner. She will also outline the key differences between Freedom of Information requests and the Environmental Information Regulations.

Suzanne Cross from the campaign group Save Our Greenspace will share her experience of using Freedom of Information requests to access information about the House of Rosskeen development in Inverness.  She will outline the benefits, pitfalls, and how she is still working with the Information Commissioner to ensure the right information is provided. The Save our Greenspaces campaign has recently moved to judicial appeal, costing thousands, Planning Democracy will donate their proceeds of the webinar to the Save our Greenspaces Just Giving campaign – find out more about the campaign and how you can supporting them here.

More about the speakers

Preslava Todara

Preslava has broad experience in legal research and analysis, as well as in project management. Prior to joining ERCS, she worked on research in the field of renewable energy and greenwashing. Her past work with a Glasgow-based environmental start-up included project management and policy research for saline water farms in the west of Scotland. Alongside working for ERCS, she volunteers for a rewilding charity. In her spare time, she enjoys reading, learning languages, and pickling.

Suzanne Cross

Suzanne represents the Save our Greenspaces campaign. Save Our Green Space (SOGS) formed in late-2023 in opposition to a proposed housing development on the outskirts of Invergordon, Ross-shire. The development will destroy the town’s last remaining wild, traffic-free greenspace, and irreversibly damage the ancient woodland surrounding it. The site is a sanctuary for the local community, a haven for biodiversity and protected species, has a settlement history spanning over 1000 years, and is a vital part of Scotland’s heritage. 

SIGN UP FORM

We hope you managed to find moments of rest and joy over the festive break. And to those of you who spent the holidays wrestling with planning applications, responding to consultations, or deciphering dense technical reports — we applaud you. There are few things less festive than poring over planning documents with a mince pie in hand. Yet this quiet, determined work is often what is needed for our communities and local areas.

As we step into a new year, we wanted to take a moment to reflect on what you’ve helped make possible, and why the year ahead could be one of the most important yet for planning democracy in Scotland.

A year of learning, organising and growing power

2025 has been about building skills, confidence and collective strength.

We brought people together through four webinars (still available just click on the links), exploring everything from Nature Networks and Planning Enforcement, to Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) — revealing how something as overlooked as drainage in new housing estates could unlock real gains for urban biodiversity.

One of the standout moments was a mini webinar on wildlife monitoring session with Tess Jones from the Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group. Tess shared years of hands-on experience recording plants, insects and animals, reminding us that protecting nature isn’t just about policy — it’s about curiosity, local knowledge and learning by doing.

That learning came to life at Palacerigg Park in Cumbernauld, where 25 people joined us for an in-person workshop. Together, we learned how to identify veteran and ancient trees, record wildlife using tools like iNaturalist to build evidence that can stand up in planning battles. These are the kinds of practical skills that turn concern into action.

Learning how to use the I-Naturalist app at Palacerigg Park

Alongside this, we refreshed our core guidance on:

• Responding to Planning Applications
• and
• How Planning Decisions are Made and Your rights to Participate

Because knowledge is power — and communities deserve both.

From lived experience to a shared vision

One of our biggest achievements this year was developing and launching our manifesto.

This wasn’t written in isolation. It was shaped through workshops, conversations and the lived experiences of communities who know first-hand what planning injustice looks like. The result is a bold call for change: a demand to move away from a system designed for private profit, towards one rooted in public good.

Manifesto workshop at Cumbernauld.

At its heart, the manifesto calls for planning that prioritises people, nature and climate, and places community power at the centre of decision-making.

Why now? Because Scotland is at a crossroads. We can continue with a system that concentrates power and wealth in the hands of developers and elites — or we can fight for a future where housing is a human right, nature is protected, and decisions are made with, not for, communities.

We’re proud that organisations including Community Land Scotland, Living Rent, Environmental Rights Centre Scotland, the Community Led Housing Alliance and the Wellbeing Economy Alliance have shown support for this vision. But real change will only happen if politicians are pushed to act — and that’s where you come in. This election year, your voice matters more than ever. We need you to send our manifesto to your elected representatives asking them to support the calls for action.

Or join us at our Parliamentary event on 27^th January 6-8pm (email us at info@planningdemocracy.org.uk to sign up)

Presenting our Manifesto to members of the Living Rent Conference

When policy meets reality: the fight for ancient woodland

This year also reminded us just how high the stakes are.

This year, we’ve been supporting a community challenge to a planning decision at the House of Rosskeen in Invergordon — a case that has now reached the courts.

The development was approved despite affecting ancient woodland, a habitat that national planning policy is meant to protect. Crucially, the potential loss of this woodland was not clearly disclosed to the Planning Committee that approved the application.

Local residents, working with Save Our Greenspaces, have raised a judicial review, arguing that the committee was misled on a key issue that could have changed the decision. The case centred on the ancient woodland—protected by policy. Loss of the ancient woodland was never disclosed to the Planning Committee that approved the development. The Council’s argument was that “yes, it is ancient woodland, and yes, trees will be removed, but loss of trees within ancient woodland does not equate to loss of ancient woodland”. In response the SOGS lawyers asked: “If removing trees from ancient woodland is not loss, then what is?” The implications of the court’s judgement on this extend far beyond Invergordon. We await the result with baited breath.

This legal challenge is being funded largely through the personal savings of local people, who have already faced significant costs. If you’re able, please consider donating to the group’s fighting fund or sharing the appeal – every contribution helps defend irreplaceable woodland and community rights.

The next challenge for us: defending biodiversity, together

Looking ahead, we’re excited — and determined — to scale up our work on nature protection through a new initiative: Biodiversity Defenders.

When National Planning Framework 4 was introduced in 2023, it promised a step-change for nature. But our research shows that despite stronger policies, developer compliance remains alarmingly weak.

A major study in England found that on large housing developments, only 34% of promised ecological measures were actually delivered. The same goes for Scotland, nature is still being lost — silently, cumulatively, and largely unmonitored.

That’s why we’re working with Sheffield University on Biodiversity Guardians: a community-led project that will train local people to monitor what nature is being lost to developments that could be replaced. The project will help communities hold developers to account, and ensure environmental promises are kept. We’ll be applying for funding from the National Lottery to make this vision a reality, but thank you to the Network for Social Change for their contribution to feasibility work to be started this year.

Communities Taking the Message to Parliament

The year ahead is looking like it is going to be busy.

In January

we’ll present our manifesto at a parliamentary event, Better Planning for Communities and the Planet. Community voices from across Scotland will take centre stage, alongside leading academics from Sheffield and Glasgow University. It promises to be a powerful evening — and you’re warmly invited.

Email info@planningdemocracy.org.uk if you’d like to attend.

In February

we’ll be at the Scottish Parliament again for the Scottish Community Alliance’s national gathering, celebrating community leadership and setting priorities directly with decision-makers. There are still a couple of places left if you wish to attend.

Contact info@planningdemocracy.org.uk for more information

Future Webinars for you

On 4^th February at 7pm we will be holding another joint webinar with APRS, this one is about Accessing Environmental Justice with the Environmental Rights Centre Scotland (ERCS).

On Wednesday 25th Feb 2026 there will be one on Freedom of Information Requests, again with ERCS

Sign up will soon be available for these two webinars.

This is what collective action in 2026 will look like:

Planning Democracy will continue to strive to work on behalf of communities in Scotland. But none of this happens without you, we are a grassroots organisation, we have been lucky enough to have funding from the Baring Foundation and Shiehallion again this year, which has been vital, but most of our work is done through voluntary effort. This year we have taken on four fantastic volunteers, Tamara, Olivia, Susie and Rachel, who will be helping us with our communications work. But collectively we can all make a difference. Every webinar attended, every letter written, every conversation had — it all builds towards something bigger.

This year, let’s keep pushing. Let’s make planning democratic, nature non-negotiable, and community power unstoppable.

We hear so many people concerned about the state of the world, our democracy is in crisis, climate change threatens our existence, nature is fundamentally at risk and ordinary people are facing increasing inequality. Its all rather daunting and is not helped by the political context being increasingly divisive, with misinformation, blame, and hostility dominating our interactions. It’s easy, in such a world, to feel powerless and to lose hope.

So in this context you might reasonably ask:

Why does a manifesto on planning matter?

Well we are not going to claim that our manifesto offers a simple fix for all these interconnected crises. But what we have done is look at planning in the broadest possible sense. Our manifesto isn’t about technical tweaks or procedural details. What we done is we’ve taken a step back to examine the deeper, systemic issues that communities face whenever they encounter Scotland’s planning system.

Because the way our planning system operates, within the wider social, economic, and political context, is helping to drive inequalities and environmental degradation. It isn’t delivering the homes people need, or addressing the climate and energy crises we face. And that’s not just a failure of planning; it’s a failure of the whole system.

That’s why meaningful change requires whole-system transformation. Our manifesto, maps out what that could look like: broadening the conversation beyond planning law and policy, and addressing the wider forces that shape development decisions such as the relentless focus on economic growth and the erosion of democratic accountability.

Our manifesto is about recognising that planning is deeply interconnected with the health of our democracy, our environment, and our communities. If we want better outcomes, we need to change the system, not just the symptoms. Power needs to shift from big business and big money to communities.

This message seemed to be resonate with people last night. It was great to see organisations such as Community Land Scotland, Scottish Community Alliance Living Rent and others at our launch event too. We look forward to collaborating with many organisations to press for a fairer Scotland where power is handed back to communities and our public services start to work in the public interest.

As one person attending last night put it in an email this morning

“The System must change and change quickly before there is nothing left of Scotland.  I heard last night from local Councillors and residents from north/south/east/ and west of Scotland and everyone is saying the same thing – planning in Scotland is being driven by Developers and Landowners for profit (capitalism), when it should be driven by local communities and how they want their communities to develop“.

We agree.

So do others, like Parks Watch who are already endorsing our manifesto Planning democracy, the local place plan for Balloch and the forthcoming decision on Flamingo Land – parkswatchscotland

We are asking everyone to email our manifesto to their MSPs (find your MSPs here) and tell them we need a thorough rehaul of planning, which includes strengthening local democracy, distributing power fairly and giving our environment the protection it so desperately needs. If they are brave enough to take this on, then perhaps they are worth voting for in the next election.

You can read the manifesto summary below.

Or if you prefer here is the detailed manifesto

Over the past few months, we’ve been working closely with our amazing network of supporters to finalise our manifesto. This document is the result of years of hard work—listening to communities, running surveys and workshops, carrying out research, and exploring alternatives. Together, we’ve built something truly powerful.

We will be launching our fully illustrated manifesto on 27^th November in Edinburgh 6-8.30pm

Sign Up Here

Come and join us in an event about how to deliver this far reaching and transformative manifesto  

Our manifesto 

• is a solution to many of the issues that you face in planning; the injustices, the environmental degradation and the destruction of existing communities that you would have described to politicians. 
• is a roadmap for transforming Scotland’s planning system to truly serve its people and places—and many of you have helped shape it.
• Includes over 30 Calls to Action: stronger community power, rights-based planning, environmental protections, affordable sustainable housing, and land reform

We need your help  to make it a reality

Manifesto Workshop – Edinburgh

27th November | ? 6–8:30pm 

Augustine Church, 41 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1EL

Tasty Nosh and Refreshments Provided

Travel Expenses for those who need

This event will

Dive deep into our full manifesto, understand every chapter discussing details with specially invited guests to provide expertise and help get underneath some of the issues.

Help relate what we have said in our manifesto to your own experiences of planning

Give you the tools to talk to your elected representatives about delivering on our Calls to Action. 

This is your chance to be a driving force for real change.

Sign up for the event fill in this form

Here is a copy of our quick read manifesto

Contact us info@planningdemocracy.org.uk for more information about the event or if you need help to get there.

We are particularly interested in recruiting trustees who have skills in these areas:

– governance – communications (social media, online resources, website management)

However, we are keen to hear from anyone who feels that Planning Democracy is an organisation they are interested in getting involved with.

What we can offer you

Training opportunities: We think training and support for our trustees and volunteers is REALLY important. Some of the training we have done in the past includes charity governance, fundraising, social media, book keeping and public speaking.

Learning opportunities: You will develop an understanding of some fundamental topics such as the land use planning system in Scotland works, legal issues around Aarhus and European law.

Experience in campaigning and advocacy: Our campaign work involves holding meetings, promoting our manifesto, direct political lobbying, and responding to consultations. Our advocacy work includes media campaigns, public speaking, commissioning and publishing research.

Opportunity to travel in Scotland and meet new people (we have met hundreds!). For example each year we hold a great event which allows people to network and meet like-minded people.

Being part of a committed group of people: we are passionate about democracy and the environment. (And we also have some fun social events each year!)

If you are interested, contact our Chair, Helen Todd on info@planningdemocracy.org.uk. We can then send you an application form and/or have a chat.

We were all set to launch it at the Scottish Parliament on 16th September, at an event sponsored by Monica Lennon MSP. The evening was going to be a key moment—bringing communities from across Scotland to speak directly to politicians about the issues that matter to them and why they back our manifesto.

Unfortunately, we hit a setback. The Parliamentary Bureau, which schedules all business at Holyrood, cancelled our event at the last minute due to a Chamber debate expected to run late. While this is allowed under the current rules, it was a real disappointment—especially after the months of planning and the energy that had built around the event.

But we’re not letting this stop us.

Since then, we’ve been in conversation with organisations like Living Rent, Community Land Scotland, and South of Scotland Community Housing, exploring how we can align our efforts and campaign more effectively together. These conversations are helping us sharpen the manifesto and tackle some of the more complex challenges within it.

You can read the latest version of our manifesto [here] (link to full version)
Or check out the quick-read summary [here] (link to summary)

And we’re not done yet.
We’ll be holding a supporters’ workshop in Edinburgh on 27th November, 6–8:30pm, to dive into the manifesto in more detail. This session will help you understand the document and give you the tools to talk to your own elected representatives about why they should support our vision.

Save the date: We’ve rescheduled our Parliamentary event for 27th January 2026—and we can’t wait to see you there!

We want to know what you think of it.

The document emerges from years of community-led research, advocacy, and organising work that has brought together diverse voices from across Scotland to identify shared challenges and develop collective solutions

To create this manifesto, we have:

• conducted surveys to understand community experiences of planning
• carried out case study research into specific planning decisions
• worked with academic partners to assess planning policy and practice
• held workshops and in-depth conversations exploring planning challenges and potential solutions

While there are many important aspects of planning reform that need to be addressed, we have focused our manifesto on the themes that communities consistently tell us are most urgent: having genuine power over local development decisions, protecting the natural environment, ensuring fair access to housing and services regardless of economic circumstances, and being able to hold decision-makers accountable. People have asked us to put forward bold radical reforms, taking a human rights approach that delivers environmental justice.  

We are continuing to develop the Manifesto as new radical ideas come forward.

You can respond to it using this form here.

Join us for another free webinar on our Planning and Nature series on Thursday 28th August 7-8pm.

SIGN UP FOR Drainage, Ditches and Buzzing Biodiversity HERE

Did you know that the drainage systems in new housing estates could hold the key to boosting urban biodiversity? Those grassy dips, shallow ponds, and ditches that you see in new housing estates aren’t just there to deal with rain — they could be the secret to saving wildlife in our cities.

We are running an exciting webinar exploring how Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) can do far more than manage rainwater and prevent flooding. When designed with nature in mind, SUDS can become vital habitats for birds, amphibians, and especially pollinators like bees and hoverflies — bringing wildlife right to our doorsteps.

Craig Macadam and Andrada Opris will be giving us the benefit of their knowledge of SUDS and their potential for nature enhancements.

Craig is Co-Leader and Director of Conservation at Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust. Following 11 years in the Scottish Water industry, he now oversees Buglife’s conservation, advocacy, and planning work. Craig is a freshwater specialist with a particular interest in less well-known species and overlooked habitats.

Andrada, a researcher at Edinburgh Napier University, who is doing a PhD looking at biodiversity and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). She has written a short blog below as an introduction, you can come along to our free webinar to learn more about these drainage systems and how planners and developers can ensure they are designed with nature in mind. 

There’s a big opportunity to support nature right where we live, through the drainage systems built into new housing estates. Whenever natural landscapes are converted into urban infrastructure such as streets and buildings, natural drainage is lost. But artificial structures like Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) can be designed as shallow challnels, grassy ditches, ponds, or basins. You might have walked past (or live by) one without realising it. They are now mandated for new developments in Scotland to manage rainwater, reduce flooding, and stop pollution.

But here’s the exciting part: if designed with biodiversity in mind, SUDS can become much more than just drainage. By keeping water at the surface instead of hiding it underground in pipes, SUDS can create new homes for wildlife, including birds, amphibians and pollinators, and help tackle biodiversity loss. Therefore, they can bring nature closer to people and provide a lifeline for many species. This is epsecially important as natural ponds have been disappearing rapidly in the UK, leading to drastic freshwater species decline. Fortunately, research shows that SUDS could support surprising levels of biodiversity, sometimes even rivaling natural wetlands.

Pollinators, in particular, are essential for our food production and ecosystems. While bees usually get the attention, hoverflies are just as important. Unlike bees, some hoverflies begin life in water as larvae, feeding on decomposing matter and tolerating poor water quality, while adults rely on floral resources like pollen and nectar. For these reasons, artificial water features such as SUDS, could also provide vital homes for pollinators, supporting both adults and larvae, right at our doorstep.

My PhD research at Edinburgh Napier University explores what benefits SUDS might bring to pollinator communities, across 60 sites in Scotland’s Central Belt. The idea is to find out what features make these systems most useful for wildlife, and how we can design them not just to manage water, but to help nature thrive in the heart of our cities. The findings will help shape national conservation policy and support projects that connect green spaces across urban areas, making cities better for both people and wildlife.

Sign up here for the Drainage Ditches and Buzzing Biodiversity webinar

Thursday 28th August 7-8pm

———–

Other mini webinars on Nature and Planning

If you missed the mini Monitoring Wildlife webinar with Tess Jones from the Badenoch and Strathspey Conservation Group? You can watch it here!

In just 15 minutes, Tess shares invaluable insights from her years of experience in recording and monitoring many different kinds of animals, plants and insects— a crucial part of protecting habitats and biodiversity from development. She offers practical tips on observing and identifying wildlife in your local area, highlighting the importance of tapping into local expertise and learning by doing.

This fascinating talk encourages us to look beyond the obvious — to creatures we often overlook, like slugs and fungi — which can be powerful indicators of ecologically valuable places.

Whether you’re new to nature recording or already active in local campaigns, this talk offers accessible advice on how to observe and document species, and build evidence that strengthens the case for nature conservation and gives insights that can be crucial when challenging planning proposals.

Click below to watch the webinar.