Planning
I move the meeting back into public for agenda item 8, which is a planning briefing. I welcome back to the committee the Deputy Minister for Social Justice, Des McNulty, who will lead the briefing, and Jim Mackinnon, who is the chief planner with the Scottish Executive. In order to assist members in the course of the presentation that the minister is about to give, we have circulated a document called "Towards A National Planning Framework". I invite the minister to give an initial address, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions.
As a former member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I know that there was a perception that the committee might not have had enough time to pay sufficient attention to the issue of planning, given the weight of its legislative work and its other responsibilities. I expect that the successor committee will devote more attention to planning issues, because considerable work undoubtedly needs to be carried out on the system in Scotland. As we are in the process of considering how to take forward that agenda, it is perhaps particularly appropriate to have this dialogue here and now.
I have been asked to discuss in some detail the proposed national planning framework for Scotland, which needs to be considered in the context of a wide-ranging modernisation of the planning system in Scotland. The key components of that modernisation are a review of strategic planning, improving participation and raising standards of design. All those are laudable objectives, but it is important that we take them forward in a sensible, considered and consultative way.
The Executive has proposed that there should be a national planning framework. In our view, the process of drawing up that framework must be inclusive and must involve the key institutions so that we can try to take account of their aspirations for the Scotland that we all want to see. I emphasise that the national planning framework is not about the Executive making decisions that are more appropriately made by councils. As an old local government hand, I am fairly clear about where the boundaries between the Executive's responsibilities and councils' responsibilities should be.
We need to have a genuinely national framework that begins to address the choices that lie before us not only about Scotland's economic development, but about social issues and the built environment. Planning brings together all those different strands. If we can get an appropriate national planning framework, it will guide and influence the decisions and, we hope, make them more rational and systematic than they perhaps were in the past.
I hope that beginning the preparation of a national planning framework will send out a positive message about what we want to do. We need to look forwards, but we must also take on board some of the good lessons that can be learned from south of the border and from other countries. We can then begin to identify best practice and build it into the way in which planning decisions are made in Scotland. The framework is emphatically not about short-term fixes; we need a longer-term strategy for planning in Scotland.
We need to identify the issues that are crucial to Scotland's long-term development and consider what kinds of planning arrangements and what kinds of infrastructure stemming from planning need to be put in place to meet those challenges. As I have emphasised, I see the national planning framework as an attempt to make the process of decision making more rational and more systematic than has hitherto been the case.
Establishing a stronger planning framework will undoubtedly help us in developing a more systematic method of approaching, for example, infrastructure decisions or decisions about the balance of development between different kinds of use. Nobody benefits if we have ill-defined structures and proceed by a process of unco-ordinated incrementalism, as has perhaps been the case with some decisions in the past. At the same time, we do not want a rigid blueprint for Scotland that is set down at a particular point in time and then becomes a constraint on development.
The framework that we establish must be flexible, but it must also be coherent. By establishing a reasonable framework in the broadest terms, we allow local authorities, developers, public bodies and others who need to make development proposals to work within the context of rules that everyone knows and understands.
As part of the process, we need to achieve a better understanding of the current state of Scotland's development and infrastructure, the factors that drive change and the policy levers that are genuinely open to us. There may be differences of view among different agencies and different strands in the equation. There may even be some differences in approach between political parties. However, it is important that we do what we can to analyse the evidence to enable us to reach a shared understanding of what the issues are and how they might be taken forward.
Some of the proposals are likely to be controversial. I would not expect to achieve uniform agreement across the board to everything that the Executive proposes. A lot of the planning system relates to legislation that has been in existence for a considerable period. Therefore, if we are to move the planning agenda forward, I expect significant discussion and debate between different points of view and different structural and statutory interests. It is important that, in charting the way ahead, we listen to different views and perspectives and try to include as many of them as possible.
One key strand of what we want to achieve is greater public involvement in the planning system and in decision making. However, that involvement has to be meaningful. It cannot be partial and for show; we have to make the process genuine. We also have to recognise—those of us who have been involved in difficult planning decisions will be aware of this—that some views on planning issues are irreconcilable and that it is not possible to get everybody to agree about the rights or wrongs of a particular process. In such circumstances, planning decisions have to be taken in the context of the wider public good. The issue is how we arrive at those decisions and how we involve people in a genuine and meaningful way, while recognising that decisions have to be made and that those decisions will not all be unanimous.
The framework will involve hard choices, as will the decisions that have to be made in the context of it. There may well be circumstances in which everybody is on board and we can achieve a win-win outcome, but undoubtedly there will be instances where some people feel themselves to be beneficiaries of a planning decision or framework while other people feel that their interests have not been adequately addressed. Being realistic about that, we have to try to make everybody think that the process of arriving at the planning framework and the application of the framework is as transparent and fair as possible.
If we can establish a clear structure to advance planning and planning decision making, we can perhaps cut out some of the resentment that people feel about procedural issues, such as the way in which planning decisions are made. We must try to remove the frustration that key agencies—whether they be business, environmental or other interests—feel about the system, especially if they think that the system does not work for them. If there are to be real differences of view, let them be differences of view about the substance of the issue at stake, rather than about the procedures. That is what we want to achieve.
Inevitably, if we get the national planning framework right, it will set out a vision for Scotland as a place and begin to colour in how different parts of Scotland or different interests in Scotland can achieve their objectives. It is important that we make progress systematically. We should emphasise the deliverability of what we want to achieve. There is no point in having grand plans that are undeliverable in resource terms or unrealistic in terms of the balance of interests. We need to achieve the best that we can achieve, taking into account all the relevant factors and different issues involved.
We also want to speed up the process of development and change in the best sense, so that the time scales that are involved in reaching decisions and establishing frameworks are cut, at least in terms of the unnecessary bureaucratic elements. As far as possible, we want to ensure that decisions on planning applications or on streams of planning applications are right first time. The more transparent and realistic we can make the front end of the planning system, the more we will cut out the prospect of lengthy and tortuous appeals which, ultimately, are symptoms of failure. That is what we want to do.
Some people have questioned the inclusion of planning in the social justice portfolio and argue that it should belong in another portfolio. From my perspective—I have been a minister for only two and a half months—there is considerable value in having planning within the framework of social justice, because that enables social justice considerations to be taken into account from the earliest stages of the planning process and it makes us think of the overall balance of what we want to achieve. Planning in a social justice context is perhaps less driven by the special interests of the economy or the transport providers. It is about needing a social conscience from day one.
The inclusion of planning in the social justice context has acted as a spur to the planning officials; they have to think about how they fit into the social justice agenda. It also gives pause for thought about how we can make the planning system more responsive to the needs of minority groups and interests and perhaps more responsive in the broader framework of accessibility with which we want to proceed. For example, I have just signed off some guidelines in which I have tried to influence the provision of facilities for walkers and cyclists. I suspect that, in an economically driven agenda, that would be less likely to have happened. However, there are senses in which, in a social justice perspective, what is in one's mind influences how one makes planning decisions.
Planning is already important and will become increasingly so in the work of the Scottish Executive. From whatever perspective, if we are to make a better Scotland, how we plan that, how we gather the different elements of our vision, how we make decisions and how those are carried forward will all be crucial to our success. We will embark on a systematic review of the planning process, looking at issues such as increasing public involvement and how decisions are made, as well as establishing the proposed national planning framework. That is an important signal of intent. Whatever happens on 1 May, I anticipate that the committee's successor will end up dealing with those issues systematically and comprehensively over the next two or three years.
I do not know whether committee members want to ask me questions immediately or to hear Jim Mackinnon's presentation first.
It would be best to hear Jim Mackinnon's presentation first.
Jim Mackinnon (Scottish Executive Development Department):
I will talk members through the book of slides that we have circulated.
What is driving us towards a national planning framework for Scotland? First, there is a rather strange document called the "European Spatial Development Perspective", which is a strange mixture of Eurospeak and planning theology. Although terms such as "balanced polycentrism" are not the talk of sitting rooms in Scotland, the document is important, because it has put issues of space and place back on the policy agenda. It is also important for the practical reason that the Commission is showing a lot of interest in spatial frameworks as a context for resource allocation in Europe post 2006. One must bear that in mind.
The committee will be aware of the pathfinders to the Parliament initiative, which set out a business agenda for the Parliament and referred to the need for a high-level vision for infrastructure and land use in Scotland.
The minister referred to the review of strategic planning, to which the responses were published in June 2002. The review was essentially about the statutory planning systems, structure plans and local plans. It also gave us the opportunity to propose a national planning framework for Scotland. Only 4 per cent of the respondents were against that proposal.
There is a perceived gap in Executive polices over a wide range of policy initiatives, such as "A Smart, Successful Scotland" and social justice action plans. There is a feeling that insufficient attention has been paid to issues relating to space and geography. Spatial planning is not a policy panacea. It is about looking at issues in a different way, although it does not make them less problematic. As the minister said, it is also about Scotland looking forwards and outwards.
It is important for us to understand the wider European context. There is no doubt that the economic centre of gravity has moved east since the late 1980s. Our fixed position at the extreme north-west of Europe represents a major challenge to us. Some parts of Europe have considered the implications of that geographical shift. One example is the Øresund fixed link between Copenhagen and Malmö, which was an attempt by the Danes to reposition Copenhagen in the light of the change in economic geography.
We have a lot to learn from our continental European and Scandinavian counterparts. That does not mean that we would take the approach of importing policies directly from continental Europe—what one could call the Delia Smith here-is-one-that-I-made-earlier approach. We have to recognise that the geography of Scotland is distinctive and that our institutional framework and the approaches that we take to infrastructure provision are also distinctive.
The next slide shows some of our best places and spaces. I want to get across the point that space and place are not abstract concepts; we are talking about the spaces and places in which we work and live or which we visit. As I said, Scotland has some of the best of them. The next slide shows that, although other areas have a lot less going for them, they clearly have potential. I suppose the point that we want to make is that geography affects economic and social outcomes and that places shape us.
The next slide shows the impact of Executive policies. There are spatial implications to Executive policies and decisions, even if that was not the primary intention. Let us take ferry services as an example. Our lifeline services to the islands and remote rural Scotland offer major social benefits. We now also have a direct ferry service to Europe from Rosyth. I understand that Irish hauliers are showing an interest in the alternatives to the Hull crossing. Development interest around Rosyth is growing as a result.
Members will be familiar with the debate on national parks; one park has already been established and another will be established later this year. There is a key interest in the boundaries, partly because of natural heritage issues, but also because of the anticipated benefits to the local economies, which could raise the level of development in those areas.
Another example is affordable housing. If the priority were to be changed from one that supported urban regeneration to one that supported economic development, there would be significant spatial implications and a shift from west to east.
The next slide relates to the consultation on strategic planning and shows the issues that we thought the national planning framework would address. The first issue was settlement pattern. Although we have recognised the importance of our cities through the cities review, almost two in five Scots live in small towns, some of which are part of city regions and some of which are not. Some of those places are seen as idyllic, but others, particularly the mining towns of South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire have suffered significant economic change and have experienced a substantial decline in population.
The next slide emphasises the fact that most of Scotland is rural. The future of our rural areas is a major issue. In recent times, we have seen significant structural changes in agriculture and fishing. The next slide is an exciting image of a sewer being laid: it is clear to us that infrastructure capacity, including drainage, is a big issue in some parts of Scotland. We are now aware of those problems and of the fact that a distinctive geography is involved. The fact that the population is declining and aging has very real geographical implications. I will say a bit more about population and households later.
The next slide concerns economic prospects. The different parts of Scotland have different rates of performance and potential. The average household income in the city of Edinburgh is almost 30 per cent above the United Kingdom average. No doubt there are positive aspects to that in terms of employment, but significant issues also arise in relation to affordable housing, traffic congestion and pressure on the green belt. Important environmental issues are also involved, such as natural heritage designations, flooding and coastal erosion.
We also felt that we needed to look at long-term strategic priorities for the transport system. We wanted to consider what Scotland's transport system would look like in 20 years' time. When we consulted on the review of strategic planning, we talked about the areas that we thought were important in terms of national interest and for which a co-ordinated approach was required.
One such area was west Edinburgh. As members will see from the map on the slide, most of the population of Scotland lives within a 50-mile radius of that area. The area is remarkably accessible—it is the gateway to the capital. A lot of economic activity takes place there and a lot of planning permissions have been granted. There is a debate around whether Edinburgh airport will grow to two, three or four times its present size. The clear prediction is that the airport will grow substantially. The area is becoming a victim of its own success. Major congestion is a problem, but there are also opportunities because of the railway lines that run through the area. There are tensions with green-belt policy, which is why we work with colleagues from the city council, the enterprise agency and other organisations to prepare a vision.
As the minister has said, the draft vision is about making hard choices that will not please everyone. When we consulted on the draft in 2002, we received strong support for our approach. We held a stakeholder seminar last month to reflect on the consultation and we hope to publish the final version shortly.
Other areas might benefit from such an approach. For example, much development activity is under way in the Clyde, although we have to take into account major issues such as transport and flooding in that area. Indeed, the Clyde conurbation working group is trying to take stock of those issues. Although hard choices have to be made there, there is also high market and developer interest.
Not so much development interest is being shown in the east side of the Clyde conurbation, with its concentration of vacant, derelict and contaminated land, sites of multiple ownership and social inclusion partnerships, as well as—as the evidence now suggests—its drainage constraints. However, the area has significant long-term potential. The construction of the M74 extension and its linking with the M8 through the east end regeneration route will make the area more accessible. As the minister said, we need to take a more systematic approach to planning in that area instead of simply reacting to proposals as they come in.
There is also talk of other areas. For example, I know that colleagues in Aberdeen would like us to adopt our approach in that city. However, we must be clear about the national issues in that regard instead of taking decisions on matters that are really up to the local authorities. The approach could also be adopted in rural areas such as the Western Isles, which suffer from substantial rural depopulation and economic deprivation.
Changes to areas raise difficult policy issues. Do we want to support prosperity? Are we sustaining rural or urban areas that are in decline? Are we promoting investment to meet future needs? The emphasis rests on the first two questions, because even where we support prosperity—for example, in west Edinburgh—investment in infrastructure tends to lag behind. That is why one academic has coined the term "planning backwards".
The minister highlighted the issue of long-term decision making not just on transport but on water and drainage. It is clear that not all issues and trends are susceptible to policy influence and that we cannot build our way out of every problem. Although planning must be flexible and responsive, physical infrastructure provision is just not like that. Planning, design and construction take time. The unavoidable truth is that any decisions to chop trees, remove hedges and lay bricks or concrete are essentially irreversible, which is why they must be careful, coherent and considered.
The national planning framework is based on two fundamental principles: information—or, to be more precise, information analysis—and inclusion. For example, as far as population change is concerned, there has been very pronounced growth in the east of Scotland, Stirling and Renfrewshire, whereas there has been major decline in Aberdeen, Dundee, two of the island groups and Inverclyde. There is also a pattern of modest decline in Dumfries and Galloway, East Ayrshire, Argyll and Bute, Angus and Moray.
The key factor is not so much population change as household change, which determines expenditure patterns and service provision. A family of four who live in a house will want one fridge and one washing machine, whereas four single-person households will require four of those appliances. Again, there are pronounced east-west differences in that respect. Although a major increase in the number of households is forecast in Edinburgh and the Lothians—twice as big as the increase that is forecast in the west of Scotland—the reservoir of vacant and derelict land lies in the west of Scotland. That means that we have to make hard decisions about where development will go, particularly on the east side of the country.
Employment change is also an interesting factor. Few people appreciate that the biggest increase in employment in Scotland over the past five or six years has been in Glasgow, although we should remember that only one in two of those jobs goes to Glasgow residents. Edinburgh, West Lothian, Perth and Kinross and Angus have also experienced increases.
An arc of job losses runs from Ayrshire up to Renfrewshire and West Dunbartonshire, taking in Dundee and Aberdeen. Highland is seen as an area that is experiencing employment decline but, because it is an enormous area, there are local differences. Areas such as the inner Moray firth and parts of Wester Ross and Skye may have seen increases in employment. Any analysis that we do needs to be more sensitive to those local issues.
The combination of economic geography and demographic change determines the pattern of social justice in Scotland. As a result, 22 of the 32 social inclusion partnerships lie in the west. The 2001 census will reveal differences between areas. The pattern may have shifted within Glasgow or North Lanarkshire, but the basic east-west split will be broadly the same.
I mentioned inclusion. We had bilateral discussions with Executive departments, enterprise and environmental agencies, business organisations and councillors, as well as a session with MSPs. However, we were also keen to have regional seminars. We wanted to know what the take was in different parts of Scotland. Therefore, we went to Stirling, Newtown St Boswells, Inverness, Inverurie and Ayr. I will try to summarise some of the key points that came out of those seminars. I emphasise that the seminars were not just for planners; they were for a wide range of people, including representatives of the enterprise agencies, Scottish Water and Scottish Natural Heritage.
In the central belt, the issue that emerged was whether we were supporting growth or addressing need. Clearly, people saw some scope for decentralising economic activity, but there was discussion about the levers. The Scottish Executive has a relocation policy to address some of those issues. The importance of land recycling and compact cities came out clearly once again. Infrastructure deficits, particularly in relation to transport, were also mentioned. For example, an anomaly arises around Perth. It is easy to get to the city from the Forth road bridge, but travelling from Perth to Edinburgh by train is another matter.
In southern Scotland, which is really East Lothian, the Borders and the south-west, there was a strong feeling of isolation and a feeling that the area was neglected. Transport issues inevitably came up, not surprisingly given the strong feelings about the Borders railway and the dualling of the A1. There was a concern, which was also reflected in the north-east, that rural problems in the area should not be seen to be the same as rural problems in the Highlands. There is a need to recognise the diversity of Scotland. Access to broadband was seen as an important issue for economic development.
In the Highlands and Islands, it was felt that the distinctive settlement and transport pattern had to be recognised. The population is sparse and there are issues about peripherality. There was also talk about enterprises that are based on natural resources and there was an interesting discussion on the approach to renewable energy. One council said that renewable energy could be a threat to its tourism industry, although it conceded that, if supporting investment was forthcoming—for example, investment in manufacturing wind turbines—it was prepared to make that trade-off. Not surprisingly, the trans-shipment terminal in Scapa Flow was mentioned, as were concerns about affordable housing.
In the north-east, concern was expressed about Aberdeen. Aberdeen is a city of fewer than 200,000 people, but it is the headquarters for many international companies—we should not forget that its international role is disproportionate to its size. The fact that the north-east has a distinctive pattern of small towns was raised, as was the issue of transport links—inevitably, the western peripheral road was mentioned. There were also issues about connections to the central belt. The journey from Aberdeen to Edinburgh takes two and a half hours by train. The distance is the same as from Edinburgh to Newcastle, but that journey takes only one and a half hours by train. There is a feeling that connectivity issues need to be addressed. Issues were also raised concerning rural depopulation and diversification.
We had a session in the south-west in Ayr, taking in Inverclyde, Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway. Unemployment was a major issue in that area. The area was seen as one with potential for economic activity, but improved transport links were felt to be vital, even if economic development did not follow from them directly. An important requirement was for a fairly seamless journey from Gourock, Greenock or Ayr to Edinburgh, without the need to change trains. Other issues included the potential of Prestwick's role as an international airport and Hunterston's role as a terminal. Renewable energy was seen as a large and significant resource.
What came out of those seminars? A lot of support for the exercise. The people to whom we spoke are looking for a vision to be supported by action. They are looking for the hard choices to be made. There has been a strong welcome for the inclusive approach that we have taken to preparation. There is widespread recognition that the task is difficult and it is clear that there are sensitivities. The all-Scotland focus was welcomed. The key themes that came out related to economic development and regional policy, transport, drainage, affordable housing and energy. I reinforce what the minister said—yes, the framework has to be aspirational, but it also has to be realistic. It should be about delivering long-term, sustainable solutions.
An ad hoc ministerial group has been assembled to oversee the production of the document—the group is meeting in two weeks' time. We will of course continue bilateral discussions and there will be a second round of stakeholder consultations in June. We hope to present the national planning framework to Parliament later this year.
I thank Des McNulty and Jim Mackinnon for their contributions. We move to a question-and-answer session. I am sure that members want to ask a wide range of questions.
I need to go at about quarter-past 12, so it is useful that I can ask my questions first. I thank the minister for coming along with Jim Mackinnon to speak to us; it has been a worthwhile exercise and it has given us a good overview.
The minister said that the framework was crucial to the long-term development of Scotland, which I think is right. He also said that it might be controversial. I hope that it flaming well is controversial, because we need to start challenging some of the orthodoxies that exist, break out of current thinking and create paradigm shifts, so that we can start to make a difference, because we have a falling population and low growth. Unless we start to use the planning process to address those issues, we will be in deep trouble.
I want to understand a bit more about the work that the Executive is going to do in relation to renewable energy. I cannot remember whether it was the minister or Jim Mackinnon who said that renewable energy is about the front end of the process—if ever there was an area that was about the front end of the process, that area is renewable energy. There is a need for planning guidelines and a planning strategy that say quite clearly to the industry, communities and local authorities that the process must be planning led, rather than developer led.
We have the opportunity to sort out the issues around the infrastructure and the grid. I would like the minister to say more about that specifically. Does he envisage issuing new guidelines to tell local authorities to make available the advisory plans and the local plans that say, "That is where the masts are going to be; that's a good place to have them," or, "That's where you'll not get permission"? In that way, we could speed up the process, but in a way that allows communities to feel that what they have said has been taken on board and that they have been consulted.
Another issue is affordable housing, which blocks the development of growth in places such as the Highlands and other rural parts of Scotland where there is a lack of mobility of labour and where employers cannot therefore set up. We need a planning process that takes into account the way in which we zone housing areas. I am not sure what affordable housing means to most people. We have to have a planning process that says, "There's going to be social housing in this part of Scotland, on that little bit of land." That approach would drive down the cost and build both the right type of housing and a market for which rented accommodation would be provided. I hope that that approach will be part of the process.
The third area that I want to ask about is the democratisation of the planning process and involvement of the ordinary person—for want of a better term. Third-party rights of appeal are a big issue. Will they be covered in the consultation process? Do you envisage proposals being made about them? Do we need to make good neighbourhood agreements statutory, so that they will go beyond what is required and would cover, for example, a factory that pollutes a community?
One of the biggest travesties that I have come across recently for councillors is the issue of sub judice in planning processes. Sub judice rules cut councillors out of the discussions with their communities about what is good for them and what will be bad for them in future on specific applications. We need to sort out those processes, because too many councillors have been hamstrung by it.
I know that we must get the regulation right. However, it cannot be good for democracy if a community's leader is not able to say, before an application comes up, whether they are in favour of it or against it. We must unpick that if we intend to democratise the system properly. I have mentioned three areas; I am sorry that I have taken such a broad approach.
I made it four areas.
I will begin with renewables. As the UK energy strategy was published only last week, we will need to look at it in some detail to identify the parameters and to assess the implications from a Scottish point of view. The link between renewables and other forms of energy needs to be examined systematically, over a long period of time. Energy systems cannot be put in place in one or two years—they have to be planned over a period of 15, 20 or 30 years.
On the issue of whether the process should be planning led or developer led, I think that planning must have more of a role in making the allocation, or framework, decisions within which the specifics of a renewables strategy are developed. Above and beyond that, there is a decision to be made about the mix between different energy sources and how far it would be realistic to go down any particular route, given the implications of that for other routes.
At UK and Scottish levels, we have made a strong commitment to renewables. We need to identify the planning implications of following that commitment through. That will form a significant part of the development of the national planning framework. We will consider that in the context of guidelines and once we have sorted out the general questions of principle, we will need to give careful consideration to the planning issues.
I accept that we need to have a clear framework for affordable housing, which will involve a housing strategy and a planning strategy. There needs to be a better balance between the two. In establishing our overall framework for planning, it is important that we do not take away from local government more detailed decisions about what happens where in particular council areas. Highland Council, Perth and Kinross Council and East Dunbartonshire Council, for example, are more intimately in touch with locational decisions that take place in their areas.
It is important that the councils take their decisions within a national policy framework but we must get the right balance between that framework and allowing space for local authorities to make the decisions that are right for their areas. Within that, there is a set of issues about affordable housing in areas such as the Highlands, which Bruce Crawford mentioned. There is also a set of issues about the quality of housing, particularly in the older industrial areas in the west of Scotland. We must make planning decisions about what happens to some of those areas. We need to consider more systematically than has been done before which type of regeneration would be viable and feasible.
On the democratisation of the planning process, making the whole planning process more transparent is one of the big drivers for what we want to do through the consultation and the action that will follow it. That will involve improvements in participation, in the amount of information that people have and in the points of access to planning decision making.
We will look at the appeals mechanism, which is an important strand. As far as the front end of planning and the decision-making process are concerned, I attach a lot of weight to getting them right in the first place.
My biggest single objective is to move towards a more differentiated and more accessible planning system, so that people's views are taken into account at the time a decision is being made by a local authority. In redesigning the planning system, we have three big objectives that we want to drive forward: we want to make the system more understandable, more accessible and more transparent.
I am sympathetic to the points that Bruce Crawford made about the sub-judice element of the planning process, especially as I have recently been subjected to it in relation to a planning application in my own area. The fact that community leaders cannot speak about planning applications is a problem, but there is not always an easy way round that, given the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process.
If people feel that decisions are made before the evidence is properly considered, there is a risk that the process itself might be seen to be contaminated or reduced. I am open to suggestions about how we can square that circle. We have to examine that carefully and ensure that the decision-making process is seen to be properly done and constructed. At the same time, we have to give democratically elected representatives as much scope as possible to articulate their views and the views of the communities that they represent. We will pay considerable attention to the rules for that.
I will ask an extremely broad-brush question. Diagrams such as the map make me very nervous. Is the underlying philosophy that we target our thoughts and efforts on that area, or is it that we use the planning system and the provision of infrastructure to move people and prosperity out of that targeted area, which is almost choking on its own prosperity, to further-flung parts of Scotland?
The map that Nora referred to is the one that is centred on Edinburgh.
The issue is not just about the further-flung parts of Scotland. Some of the other maps that Jim Mackinnon produced show that there are issues to do with prosperity in areas that are not far from here—they are probably within the outer ring on the map to which Nora Radcliffe pointed. Planning must not concentrate on one particular part of Scotland to the detriment of others.
Although west Edinburgh raises particular planning issues, that does not mean that other areas in Scotland will not be considered within a similar framework. However, the rate of development in the western part of Edinburgh and the various problems associated with managing that are such that the Executive and the councils most closely concerned feel that they need to get together to think through how the pattern of development might be better managed. That approach does not privilege Edinburgh; it recognises that there needs to be particularly close co-ordination in that area. Other areas of Scotland may be considered for similar close co-ordination in the months and years to come.
I would just like to get a handle on whether the basic philosophy is one of embracing the fact that, given modern technology and good infrastructure, business and development can be spread much wider than in the past. Does that underlying philosophy inform your thinking, or are you still stuck with the old idea of centralisation?
We talked about the national planning framework identifying other areas where that approach might be appropriate, and about the benefits of new technology in trying to achieve dispersal. There are issues to do with how successful some of those levers are, but we want to consider those issues as part of the national planning framework. I mentioned that Aberdeen is looking for a similar approach. However, we want to be absolutely satisfied that a national interest is involved, or we would simply be doing what the local authorities should be doing anyway. That is a big issue.
It is important to remember that we are talking about planning permissions that have already been granted in west Edinburgh, such as the permissions for the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters in Edinburgh Park and various redevelopment sites in Newbridge. We are not saying that more planning permissions need to be granted for business and industry in that area. The council has ambitious plans for the waterfront and for the redevelopment of the city centre. We are not trying to overload the area with development; rather, we are trying to respond to permissions that are already in place. Ministers are talking about access to Edinburgh airport, where growth is anticipated. The area is one of the fastest growing development areas in Scotland, yet it is served by one road.
The minister talked about solutions from continental Europe, which, by and large, would approach such problems differently; circulation and connection—putting in the transport system—would be considered first, then spaces and then buildings. We tend to approach the situation very differently. We put in buildings first and think about transport later. A key priority for us is to try to get people to think in reverse. However, we are talking about a problem that is already with us. As I said, we are not trying to encourage more development in west Edinburgh; we are talking about how we manage the growth of development in the area in a sustainable way.
I am encouraged by what Jim Mackinnon has just said, because he is talking about putting the horse before the cart, rather than the other way round. However, I disagree with the use of the term "problem" for what is happening in Edinburgh—I see that not as a problem but as a tremendous opportunity.
I hope that the Executive's approach will be driven by a view that explicitly acknowledges that all cities and city regions in Scotland—but Edinburgh and Glasgow in particular—are the key engines of economic growth. When those economies are healthy, by and large, the rest of the Scottish economy is healthy; when they are not healthy, by and large, neither is the rest of the Scottish economy.
I do not share what I think is the Liberal Democrat view that is being expressed, which is that Edinburgh is choking on its own success—far from it; Edinburgh is a very successful economy. The question is how we link that success into surrounding economies.
For example, we have a burgeoning economy in Edinburgh and a tremendously buoyant labour market, with lots of job opportunities. The real challenge is not to move those jobs to other parts of Scotland but to ensure that the populations of Fife, the Borders and West Lothian have, as Jim Mackinnon said, appropriate transport links that allow them not only to share in that economic development but to remain part of their own local community, earn a living and export their income back to their community. Growth in house prices should not force them to compete with Edinburgh home owners. That economic development should be shared more widely. The challenge is then how we do that for each of the city regions of Scotland and ensure that Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow get a fair kick at the ball in order to compete with Edinburgh and complement what Edinburgh is doing.
That takes us into broader issues, such as the economic and academic specialisations in the development of biotechnology, for example, that are clustered round the key academic institutions. How do we ensure that appropriate support is given to developing such clusters, as opposed to the support that is given to our light industrial economy and the areas where it might be developed? It would be a nonsense to say that we need to share the benefits or successes of aquaculture in our fish farming communities by ensuring that some aquaculture and fish farming takes place in the Firth of Forth. Other communities would benefit far more from support in those industries. Equally, I am not sure that we should simply decentralise throughout Scotland other sectors of the economy. We need to think about where we are strong and build around that to ensure that nobody misses out.
I would broadly agree with the thrust of Angus MacKay's comments. Our economic strategy is defined by "A Smart, Successful Scotland", but it makes no sense to consider that strategy without considering planning or infrastructure issues reasonably systematically.
There has to be a sense that the planning framework that we establish matches the economic strategy, which links into the overall social justice strategy that we are trying to develop. If those strategies do not hang together or are not interdependent, each is likely to fail. Planning has a considerable role to play in laying the foundations and providing the structural support for successful strategies for economic development, social inclusion, rural development or whatever else we might try to do in Scotland.
I will give you the chance to come back in later, Nora. However, all the committee members want to ask questions, and we have to deal with some questions on petitions, which I will put to the minister.
I will be brief. I was interested in the proactive-reactive balance. You talked about how there was a great range of economies in the Highlands. There is no unemployment in Lochaber, for example, but there is no prospect of bringing more people into the area, because there is nowhere for them to live. That is a miniature picture of what is happening in Edinburgh, because of its success. I cannot help remembering that when big industries came to the Highlands, such as the pulp mill in Fort William or British Aluminium in Invergordon, hundreds of houses were built at the same time. If a small industry goes into a remoter area and wants to employ half a dozen people, there seems to be no way of providing accommodation for those employees. I would like the minister to think on a small scale, as well as on a large scale.
I also have something to say about transparency and consultation, which are the key to getting things right in advance. We have to be careful about who we consult, particularly in small communities, because there is often a complete dichotomy. Some people want industrial development because they want a livelihood, but others, who have perhaps retired to the area, want a nice view and a quiet life.
My third point is about what happens if we make the wrong decision and whether we can revisit decisions. As Des McNulty will remember, the committee has talked about making wrong decisions—that is, finding out that a decision had an environmental impact that was not envisaged at the time. How do we revisit decisions that we wish had not been made?
I will take the last point first. One of the objectives of the process of revisiting the planning system is to reduce the circumstances in which information comes to light after a planning decision has been made that demonstrates that the basis on which the decision was made was flawed in some way. Our focus must be on doing everything that we can to ensure that the planning system works efficiently and effectively, is inclusive and gives all the relevant information at the time that the decision is made.
We have to consider mechanisms for revisiting decisions and for appeals. However, there has to be a balance between that and the time lag that can be associated with a protracted appeals mechanism, which could, in certain circumstances, slow down dramatically the pace of development or become a barrier to certain types of development. The objective is to try to get things right first time as far as possible, and to establish a robust appeals mechanism that deals with the circumstances in which we do not get it right first time. We need to consult on how we do that and where the points of access are. We also need to ensure that we have taken on board all the strands of opinion of which we need to take account in devising such a mechanism in the appropriate way.
Jim Mackinnon might want to talk about the issue of affordable housing in the Highlands. I am not sure whether that it is a planning issue alone, because planning overlaps with housing and economic development.
Transport is involved, too.
I will pick up on a couple of those points. Maureen Macmillan asked what would happen if we get things wrong. The minister made the point that we are not talking about a master plan or a rigid blueprint. We would need to review things. However, we need to be careful because, once bricks have begun to be laid, the decision has been taken and things will happen. It is important that we build in some review mechanisms.
I agree entirely about the need to exercise care in consultation. A great deal depends on whom one happens to listen to. We are alert to that. We would like to broaden the base in the second round of stakeholder consultations on the framework, so that we get a wider spectrum of views. That work will be important and will apply to development plans and development control. Councils have to make very difficult decisions about applications on which there are strongly opposing views.
We take the point about affordable housing. As the minister said, there is an issue about what is the role of housing policy and what is the role of planning policy. That is discussed in "Regulatory Impact Assessment for Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing", which was published last week. One of the points that we want to make is that there is a need to take a long-term view of housing land releases, for example, so that areas are reserved for affordable housing. When developers bid for land, it should be clear that the development will have to include an element of affordable housing. Developers should not find that out late in the day.
That is the way in which we have approached the issue. As the minister said, the delivery of affordable housing is very much a question of getting a coherent view that is based on planning policy and housing policy. Maureen Macmillan made the point that a lack of housing acts as a constraint. The lack of affordable housing for key workers is perceived to be a constraint in Edinburgh, where we might be talking about substantial numbers. In rural communities, we might be talking about only a handful of workers, but those workers are terribly important for the local economy.
I want to raise three points. The first is a general point about marine planning. "Towards A National Planning Framework" makes no mention of that. The time has probably come for us to look at the areas off the coast of Scotland as well. We should aim to put in place a framework that says that we intend to do fish farming in that part of the north-west, conservation somewhere else and renewable energies in those places. Bruce Crawford mentioned the need to get the grid systems in place for that. We should consider a strategic marine plan. I would be interested to hear comments on that.
As we have all gone local, my second point is about the regeneration of the west of Scotland. The importance of implementing an effective transport infrastructure in the west of Scotland should be emphasised, because that has not been as good as it might have been. That is reflected in one of Mr Mackinnon's slides, which showed the decline in jobs from which Ayrshire in particular is suffering. Getting in place the right transport infrastructure has to be a key priority.
Jim Mackinnon referred to the rapid growth of Edinburgh airport, but the traffic at Prestwick airport is projected to grow by multiples of four, six and eight in the next six, eight and ten years. At the moment, 30 per cent of Prestwick's passengers travel to the airport by rail. We must address the upgrading of that line. Significant upgrading might be necessary to cope with passenger growth.
My third point is about the green belt. I am not sure how the Executive wants to address that. In Ayrshire, I am aware that a green belt was put around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon some 20 years ago. In effect, that stopped the development of those areas. The intention was to increase the development of Glasgow and to drive industry towards Glasgow. I wonder whether Mr Mackinnon or the minister has any comments on the continuation of green belts or their removal.
The Ayr and Prestwick green belt was originally designated as an airport safeguarding zone for Prestwick, which covered a very small area. It is only in the past two years that the green belt has been extended right round Ayr.
John Prescott said that the green belt was an achievement that the Government meant to build on. Although I would not say that, the Executive has a firm commitment to green belt policy. It is also important to recognise that the green belt was the outcome of a long-term settlement strategy that looked at the demand for development in the longer term.
In some ways, the situation in Ayr is similar to that in Edinburgh. There is no supply of vacant and derelict land in Ayr and development in the town is therefore constrained. That poses difficult choices about whether to expand into the green belt on the north, east and south of the town, or whether to go beyond that.
We take John Scott's point about Prestwick airport. We specifically mentioned the airport as needing to be identified as an asset, not only for Ayrshire, but more broadly. His point about transport is also well made. That is one of the themes that has come through. Angus MacKay made a point about connecting into city regions. Ayrshire has a distinct identity, but we look for Ayrshire to connect not only with Glasgow and the Clyde valley, but with Edinburgh and the Lothians.
We do not have a great deal of experience of marine environment planning, because planning controls end at the low water mark, although they will be extended in due course to cover marine fish farming. We will have to consider the issue, perhaps not in the current national planning framework, but in future versions, because there is a degree of interest in how the marine environment is planned and in how strategic contexts for offshore wind farms, for example, are set.
My question is on a theme arising from what a number of people have said. We are discussing "Towards a National Planning Framework". How will you move from the reactive to the proactive? Everybody has mentioned the 1960s, when we went in for big plans, built towns in the middle of nowhere and moved people to them. I do not think that the Executive—or any Executive—would want to do such big social engineering anymore. However, I am conscious of and—as Nora Radcliffe did—I keep coming back to the point that you are reacting to the phenomenal growth in Edinburgh. We have a nice picture of the growth potential on the Clyde, but because that is only potential, your efforts seem to be directed towards reacting to where the growth is already and where problems are arising from it rather than how we make the planning framework national so that, where the potential exists, we achieve it.
That was not an attempt to get any slogans in, was it?
No. I tried to get Clydebank in.
I am sympathetic to what Fiona McLeod suggests, whatever her use of language. We must move from a developer-led planning system to one that recognises the actuality and the potential of the space in Scotland. There perhaps might be different strands to that.
The west Edinburgh planning framework is, to some extent, semi-reactive, in that, as Jim Mackinnon says, we are responding to the density of economic growth and to the fact that planning permissions have been granted. It is semi-reactive also in that we want to find better ways of handling that growth. On the Clyde, there is an area in which work is going on, but there is also considerable potential along the Clyde's full length. Perhaps we ought to consider that in terms of managing and balancing actuality with potential. In other areas of Scotland, the planning requirements will be different again.
We are keen not to say that one size fits all or to use what could be called an industrial model, of rolling out planning with new towns being designated and the various bits of the jigsaw being put in place to achieve an original vision. We need a model that recognises long-term trends, that is realistic about what can be achieved, that works towards getting the best outcome by working with the grain of the changes that are taking place in Scotland and that links—or is at least aware of—the strands of policy that the Executive is putting in place, whether economic, social justice or broader environmental strategy. All those have planning implications. We need a flexible planning system that allows them to be delivered better than they are at the minute.
I have some questions that concern not a local interest, but a petition that the committee has been considering. We thought that today would be a good opportunity to put questions to the minister and to Jim Mackinnon. Petition PE508 concerns a planning development in the minister's constituency, but we will not ask the minister to comment on the specific planning application. Rather, our questions concern the implementation of environmental impact assessments and planning advice note 58.
In particular, the petition raises three points. First, paragraph 27 of planning advice note 58 highlights the importance of public consultation early in the construction of any environmental impact assessment, but that is not being properly adhered to. In the view of the petitioners, the result is that the planning process lacks transparency and speed. Secondly, the current system whereby a developer employs a consultant to carry out the EIA creates a conflict of interest for the consultant, who may possibly be biased towards the developer. Thirdly, the EIA process, and the site selection process in particular, is not properly overseen.
Having put those issues to the minister, I invite him to respond. If he cannot give a full response just now, I would accept a response at a later stage in writing.
As at least two of those questions are of a technical nature, it might be appropriate to refer those directly to Jim Mackinnon. If it seems reasonable to the convener, I will respond after Jim Mackinnon's professional response.
There is no statutory requirement to consult the public on environmental impact statements, but our advice note gives a strong hint that public consultation should take place and is important. In part, that is because the public can identify issues with which a consultant who comes from a different area may not be familiar. There is strong advice to involve the public in the drawing up of environmental statements. We also advise that the results of the environmental statement should be made available in a form that is easy to understand. As some issues in environmental statements can be very technical and complex, we are keen that people work to present the material in a clear and coherent way.
The environmental impact statement is only one element in the decision-making process. I know that there are feelings that environmental impact statements may be biased because they are commissioned by the developer, but the developer is required to consult organisations such as Scottish Water, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and others in drawing up that statement. Those organisations will have views on the extent to which the impacts are properly and adequately addressed in the document.
When the planning application is submitted with its accompanying environmental statement, the public will of course be consulted. Community consultants are statutory consultees. Neighbours are formally notified. In addition to that, developments that involve an environmental impact statement will be widely known about. To put the issue in context, in the past 10 to 15 years there have been about 0.5 million planning applications, but only about 350 environmental statements. Environmental statements are for big projects that are widely known about.
People will make their views known, not only on the quality or relevance of the environmental statement, but the other issues that the planning application raises. When the environmental statement is received, views will be expressed by the statutory consultees, which include the community council and others who have a view on the planning application. The planning authority itself will come to a view on whether the environmental impact statement properly addresses the issues involved. If the planning authority feels that an issue has not been sufficiently addressed, it can ask for more information.
One must then consider the weight that needs to be attached to the application in coming to a planning decision. Unless material considerations indicate otherwise, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan. That is the law. When the council receives a planning application that has an environmental statement, the law requires that the first thing that the council must do is check whether the proposal is in line with the development plan. A whole range of material considerations then have to be taken into account. The environmental statement will be a very important material consideration, as will Government policy, as set out by the Executive. So will the views of statutory consultees and those of the public.
The system is designed in such a way as to allow all the issues to be aired and discussed. It is not just a matter of granting planning permission on the basis that the environmental statement says something is okay. Before reaching a decision, the planning authority has to adopt a systematic approach, taking into account what is said in the environmental statement, the views of a range of consultees on the environmental statement, and a whole range of other considerations.
To reiterate, it is not a matter of the environmental statement saying that a proposal is acceptable and planning permission being granted as a result; the statement is one of a range of things that must be taken into account in reaching a planning decision. Furthermore, the statement would be taken into account not just by the planning authority. If planning permission were refused, a Scottish Executive reporter or a minister would also take it into account in arriving at a view on how to dispose of a particular case.
One particular issue that arises out of this and other cases relates to local authority boundaries and to the consultation of people living in adjacent local authority areas who might be affected by a projected development. There might be a question whether the existing arrangements enforce their right to be consulted on the nature of the development and on its impact on them. Would the environmental impact study cover the impact on adjacent local authority areas? Those questions must be examined in the context of any overriding review of the way in which the planning system works.
Common sense should prevail and, where the project concerned would affect people in more than one local authority area, both the developers and the planning authority should take account of that impact in how they conduct their procedures. The present way in which the requirements are set out does not equate to a statutory requirement to take that into account. We perhaps need to focus some attention on that.
I think that both John Scott and Fiona McLeod wish to speak—or is it just Fiona?
No, I would like to speak, convener—but I think that Fiona McLeod wishes to make some remarks on the same subject.
In that case, I invite John Scott and Fiona McLeod both to ask their questions, after which the minister and Jim Mackinnon may respond to them together.
But mine is on a different subject—I meant that Fiona McLeod's point is on the same subject as the current discussion.
In that case, I call Fiona McLeod.
Jim Mackinnon went through the process and explained how systematic it is, or is supposed to be. In reference to the questions raised by the petitioners, which Des McNulty and I know about fairly intimately, what aspects need to be reviewed? Where does the balance need to be addressed? Does the process that you talked us through work as it is, Mr Mackinnon, and should it be left as it is, or are there areas that we need to examine?
We are only aware of this issue arising in relation to the petition. It does not seem to have been raised as a general problem to do with environmental impact assessments. If the committee feels that there is a general issue to do with the role of community involvement in environmental impact assessments, then we would be happy to consider that for research. Some of the matters that the committee has raised, including opencast coal mining and issues around telecommunications, have had an influence on our research budget and on our research programme for next year.
If the committee's view is that there are environmental impact assessment issues to be considered in respect of the effectiveness of procedures, transparency, ease of access to procedures and what Des McNulty said about consultation with neighbouring authorities, it would be perfectly possible for us to mount a research project to consider those issues. Our research budget is committed for 2003-04, but I would be happy to factor in such consideration to future research priorities, if the committee thought that that would be worth while.
Considering the matter would be useful. I would like to take the issue a bit further and also consider the other petition that we will discuss—petition PE377 on Carntyne. In petitions, many issues seem to arise that relate to environmental impact assessments, their standing within the planning procedure and who has expertise on the environment. There are three levels—the scoping, the study and the EIA itself. A thorough investigation of how EIAs, for example, work within the planning process would be worth while. The issue is not so much how the process works, as whether it works and has the effects that it is supposed to have.
Certainly, if the committee recommends research on the matter, that recommendation will be carefully considered.
Fiona McLeod raises an interesting and important point about expertise. Environmental impact assessment raises difficult issues relating to noise and discharges to air and water. The right expertise for analysis is important. The issues are difficult, technical and complex.
I realise that we are running short of time, but I will allow John Scott to ask a question, if it is brief. He should not give a long introduction to his question.
I want to ask about managing tourism through planning. Angus MacKay spoke about looking after clusters where specific groups of expertise exist. Can that be done in a tourism context? Although tourism is our biggest industry, it has not been mentioned once today. Can we enhance our tourism industry through planning?
Undoubtedly, planning and planning frameworks will influence the environment, which our tourism industry all too often sells. It is difficult to give a general answer to your question, as many issues are specific. For example, the impact of planning in Edinburgh—which is our number one tourist destination—will be different from the impact of planning on tourism industries in Skye, for example, where the landscape and the environment are the issues. I hope that, in our proposing a national planning framework, key industries such as tourism will have the opportunity to ensure that their legitimate concerns about the operation of the planning system are adequately taken on board and factored in at an early stage. Factoring those concerns into the national plan would give much more scope for local people—whether in local authorities or individuals involved in the tourism industry—to make representations against a framework that is in place, rather than having to make individual and sometimes lone representations on specific planning decisions.
I appreciate your answer and thank you.
I draw consideration of the issue to a close.
I thank the minister and Jim Mackinnon for the presentations that they have given and their participation in the question-and-answer session. This has been a useful evidence-taking session. I hope that it will provide a useful starting point for the consideration of future planning issues by those members who are returned to Parliament on 1 May.