Writing to the country's Chief Planner John McNairney in response to a range of changes being proposed at national level, the council's Infrastructure Services Committee (ISC) said the changes would take decision making further away from local communities.
The government published a Position Statement in May last year following a independent review of the planning system, along with a subsequent consultation on 20 proposals for improvement.
However, concerns have also been raised over the lack of detail around proposals to replace the role of the Strategic Development Plan (SDP), which currently provides a long term strategy for future growth. Ministers intend to replace SDP's with Regional Partnerships, yet officers and councillors said they are concerned about the lack of detail so far.
-- Advertisement --
Further concerns include the fast pace of the consultation and the emerging legislation, with Councillors worried it could lead to errors.
ISC chairman, Peter Argyle, said: "This council's most immediate concern is the lack of detail around measures to replace the role of the Strategic Development Plan and the means of engaging over regional spatial strategy and, in particular, housing requirement.
"The Council welcomes change where benefits can be evidenced but, in the context of the north-east of Scotland the current arrangements have worked very well and there is not as yet sufficient evidence or detail around a replacement system to demonstrate that it will improve on the current system.
"One size does not fit all and there is a lack of evidence that the proposals will improve the process or performance of the system in delivering infrastructure and further housing."
ISC vice chair, John Cox, added: "The current barriers to development, particularly housing, are the physical cost of development and the demand within the local markets, not the planning system or its processes.
"The changes being proposed would also remove political control from the local area, taking it to the centre, and would also potentially give developers the opportunity to renege on agreements made for contributions to improve infrastructure impacted upon by their developments, known as Developer Obligations.
"The committee wanted to reinforce the resource implications of the proposals for all councils and the need to improve trust in planning processes, which the current proposals do not assist.
"There is nothing that gives me confidence the process will be easier, quicker or more efficient, basically failing most of the objectives. Plain and simple, this would be a further erosion of the local democratic process and accountability, driven by lack of funding."
(LM)
