Official Report 445KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is an evidence session on the draft third national planning framework, or NPF3. This is our second panel of witnesses on the subject. Unfortunately, we have received a note from Scottish Land & Estates to tell us that Sarah-Jane Laing is not well and cannot be present. We are sorry about that. On behalf of the committee, I wish her a speedy recovery.
I am director of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, which is a membership charity with about 500 members.
I am a member of the Scottish Parliament for South Scotland and the shadow minister for environment and climate change.
I am the director of the rural policy centre at Scotland’s Rural College.
I am an MSP for the Central Scotland region.
I am chairman of the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation.
I am the development plans manager with Highland Council.
I am the MSP for Angus North and Mearns.
I am the director of regional development with Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
I am the MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries.
I am the director of energy and low carbon with Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
I am an MSP for South Scotland.
I am the MSP for Falkirk East.
I am from Confor, the representative body for the forestry and timber sector.
I am the MSP for Angus South.
I am Rob Gibson, the committee convener and the MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross.
Generally, we think that the approach is positive. Certainly, NPF3 is described as “the spatial expression” of the Government economic strategy, which is positive. The bringing together of economic development, sustainability and environmental issues is a positive and welcome move.
Does anyone want to flesh out any of the differences that have arisen as we have moved on through three phases of having this national overview?
It is important that we have a spatial strategy at national level. Overall, NPF1 and NPF2 worked pretty well. We have strategic development plans at regional level and local development plans, but there has to be something that gives a national spatial steer to those. That is what the NPF seeks to do and, in general, it does it well. There are tensions between some of the things that it is trying to achieve, just as there are tensions between Government objectives. We are trying to protect the landscape and generate renewable energy, and we are trying to provide housing for people and look after biodiversity. There needs to be a way in which some of those tensions are articulated and addressed and an overall national lead given on the priorities, which is what the NPF seeks to do.
We are making a start on trying to work out what the priorities are, so that we can report. Clearly, sustainability in our economy and looking after our natural resources have to be carefully balanced. People have different views on that. Does NPF3 do that better for this age than previous NPFs did?
It has made progress. Overall, as a high-level strategic document, it is really quite good. This is not necessarily a weakness of where the framework is now, but it is the aspect that probably needs to be refined a bit more: if you are looking for further developments, it is sometimes quite difficult to predict the economic elements of development, but they are important for putting the rest of the flesh on the bones. That is the bit of articulation that I think might well develop more fully in subsequent documents over time.
What do you mean by
In Scotland, we have come a long way in identifying key industries and key parts of the economy that we wish to be developed. The next questions are how far and how quickly to develop. We all recognise that that is a challenge, but it is fundamental to thinking ahead about planning issues and it would build into NPF3—which is a good document.
We do not need to labour the general point, but there might be things in there that folk want to come back on.
We have a positive observation to make about the spatial strategy in NPF3. The previous NPFs had areas of co-ordinated action, which were mentioned in the main issues report, and everyone was clamouring to ensure that their area was picked up by one of those areas of co-ordinated action. The shift in the proposed NPF, with areas of co-ordinated action being separated into energy hubs focused on low carbon and the clear spatial strategy featuring three tiers going down from the cities and city regions to the rural towns and coastal hubs, is a positive one. That very fairly addresses the wider needs of Scottish communities, particularly rural communities. That was perhaps not portrayed so well under the previous areas of co-ordinated action.
The integration that is proposed in the framework is really welcome but, as you will have seen from our submission, we would like further integration. We envisage that in three broad ways. First, we would like the framework to be integrated with other national policies and regional expressions of policy, particularly rural policies.
Graeme Dey will take that point forward.
I would like to develop it in a specific direction. How does NPF3—or how could it be made to—help check the outward migration of young people from rural areas?
I do not know whether this will answer your question but, as you have noted, we are concerned that that is not in NPF3—young people are not mentioned at all. We suggested that the framework should take account of affordable housing, which is critical to young people remaining in rural areas. We also highlighted business incubator units and the apprenticeships that are often associated with them as businesses grow. A further consideration is affordable transport—public transport and perhaps integrated transport between the private, community and public sectors.
It is clear that there is a major need for not just affordable housing but social housing in rural Scotland. The panel will be aware that one of the 13 priorities for rural Scotland as outlined by the Scotland Rural Development Council is:
We will try to bring the issues of outmigration and housing together now, if the witnesses want to comment on them. Scott Dalgarno said that Highland Council has identified from the census that housing development will be key to many areas of success. Perhaps he can take his answer from there.
I was hoping to comment on young people in particular in response to the question that was posed. By way of illustration I will focus on the Caithness and Sutherland area, for which, incidentally, we are preparing a local development plan at present. That is a good illustration of an area in which the need to tackle the issue of retaining young people is particularly pronounced.
I will press you on that point just a little. It is clear that, in Caithness, the lack of land in the towns of Thurso and Wick has meant that people have sought to build houses in the countryside. Farmers have been able to sell plots—and the population of the rural areas in Caithness has increased—but only to those who can afford them.
There has historically been some land available—a generous supply, I would say—in the towns. However, there has been a shift, as the census shows, to outward landward areas outwith the towns. We are seeking to redress that by allocating more land in the towns so that we can provide for a wide choice of housing there and concentrate on servicing the towns and reducing the need to travel in order to create sustainable places in which to live. We are very aware of that issue and are trying to address it through our local development plans.
I will offer a south of Scotland perspective on that point. In my experience, the problem is that, where housing has been built in a rural part of south-west Scotland, it has tended to be built not so much where the identified need is, but more where the infrastructure will support the housing. Often, housing is built in communities where there are not a lot of local employment opportunities and where there is poor public transport infrastructure. Unless we join up all that thinking, we will not solve the problem. We might build houses, but building them in the wrong places has a particularly poor effect on meeting climate change targets, as people are more dependent on cars to get anywhere. This is quite a problem in not just the north but the south of Scotland.
We have large areas of rural Scotland where there are small towns and quite big countryside areas.
I want to build on what Sarah Skerratt said. Housing, particularly affordable housing, is incredibly important in retaining young people in rural areas, but so are the connectivity issues. The young people who access that affordable housing must also have access to opportunities for employment or education and the ability to get to those opportunities. The linkages between those things are vital; if we have one without the other, that does not really address the issue.
I will have to press you on that because even the scheme around the Highlands is aimed at only 83 per cent of homes and businesses.
We are contractually committed to connecting 84 per cent of premises.
Sorry, I got the figure wrong—it is 84 per cent.
However, that is only a starting point and we are committed to extending that. We are already considering how we can increase that percentage and extend the scheme to more premises. We are also looking at other methods of connectivity—new technologies that are coming on stream all the time. Our aim is to get to 100 per cent, and we must focus on that. However, to put it in context, without the project that is currently being rolled out in the Highlands and Islands only 21 per cent of premises would be covered. Although 84 per cent is not our ultimate aim, it is an incredibly big leap forward from where we would be without the project.
Without a doubt, and the same is true of the south of Scotland scheme, we agree. Nevertheless, it will still be more expensive for people to hook up to the system from the most remote rural areas, and we are talking about accessibility. During our budget considerations, we took evidence on community broadband Scotland, which advises people but has only a very small pot of money. The cost of people accessing broadband is an added problem in those areas.
I underline that addressing the last 16 per cent of premises in the Highlands and Islands is not the remit purely of community broadband Scotland. Our aim should be, as far as possible, to establish the core next-generation broadband project, which will allow people to access wholesale prices on a national pricing basis.
We may return to the issue of affordability, as broadband is essential to the infrastructure that underpins the sustainability of rural Scotland. I am on a committee of the Royal Society of Edinburgh that has undertaken an inquiry into spreading the benefits of digital participation. The inquiry’s findings will be published in the spring. Affordability and reliability are two key elements in ensuring that people have what is now seen as a right to access. It is about affording rights because if someone does not have access, they do not have access to certain rights as a citizen. Access to broadband has increasing implications according to the findings of the RSE report.
I want to broaden out slightly this discussion of the needs of rural communities. One of the Government’s 13 priorities for rural Scotland is more community control of assets and resources. I wonder how relevant that is in the conversation that we are having about empowering our rural communities through the provision of affordable housing and the ownership of assets in towns and villages and beyond.
That might well be something that “energy man” here picks up.
From HIE’s viewpoint, successful communities are those that control a lot of their assets. Gigha is a successful community that controls its assets and so has the ability to control money-generating activities. Particularly in places such as Gigha and Eigg, we are looking at community renewable energy, which it is not just renewable energy, but something that gives a sustained, long-term income stream that allows the community to reinvest in a range of other activities, whether energy efficiency, housing or community facilities.
That is an interesting point. The maps in NPF3 show the growth points, to use the old Highlands and Islands Development Board term. John Mayhew has talked an awful lot about the bits in between, which seems to give a very different picture of Scotland.
The point that we were trying to make was very much the one that Scott Dalgarno made, which is that it is best not only from a landscape point of view, which is our interest, but from a climate change point of view—that aspect is part of the committee’s remit—to focus the housing development that is required in the towns and villages, if that is possible. I acknowledge what has been said about the lack of available land and that Highland Council and others are doing their best to identify land across Scotland. However, as Alex Fergusson said, it is important that housing development goes in the right place, which is where it is needed and not just to where the infrastructure can support it.
It is the easy management of people that we are talking about, not the actual use of our natural resources, which are spread all over the place. When we talk about the countryside, we are going to have to be a little more focused in the way that we define it, because just to say that we cannot have houses in the countryside is to go against the whole way in which people have lived in these lands for millennia. The resources that we are talking about today are in small places as well as in larger ones. We are trying to achieve a balance of these things, which is why I am trying to explore the issue in a bit more detail just now. Sarah Skerratt was going to say something about that.
I was going to come back to a point that was made earlier.
Please carry on.
You talked about community control of assets. In 2011, we carried out research on community land buyouts and found evidence that community ownership enhances community resilience.
I absolutely agree. Community ownership of assets is great and enhances the resilience of fragile communities, as Sarah Skerratt said, and in the Highlands and Islands we try to align the approach with community capacity building. In our community account management programme, we work with anchor organisations in communities to try to ensure that there is capacity to continue, so that assets have a sustainable future. We also try to bring in more people. In very rural communities, we tend to find that the same faces are involved in everything. We need to spread knowledge and capacity throughout communities.
I am sorry; I do not want to hog this part of the discussion. We are also researching the role of the private sector in working with communities. Certainly in the field in which I research, rural communities are regarded as everything but the private sector. However, the private sector is integral to rural communities. We are interested in exploring how the private sector works with communities, whether we are talking about private landowners, micro-enterprises or small and medium-sized enterprises. I wanted to flag up that our research shows that the private sector is integral in the process.
That is helpful; it would be interesting to see your report. We need to hone some ideas about how NPF3 accounts for rural communities.
Let me pick over a point that Sarah Skerratt has just made and that Calum Davidson made earlier. The key to all this is economic development. If there are not jobs and opportunities, such as better local opportunities for education, we simply create highways out of rural areas rather than highways into them.
That is certainly one model.
As the convener said, issues such as low carbon and employment are important elements of the spatial strategy. It may be wise to look also at flooding and river basin management; obviously, river basins are generally not coterminous with local authority areas. It would be interesting to hear the panel’s views about where we are with river basin management, specifically in relation to flooding, and about the framework’s position on that. Are we seeing enough local authorities working on flood risk management? Is it a part of planning and the rural economy that everyone is thinking about? Are we seeing joint activity already, or do we need to work harder on that?
We are dealing adequately with flooding issues. Not only are we making sure that they are dealt with early in the planning application process, we are dealing with them through the development plan as well. The strategic environmental assessment process that we go through in preparing a development plan and interrogating each decision that we make on allocations for future development adequately addresses the potential for flood risk.
Perhaps we need to think outside the Highland Council area and look at other local authority areas. Obviously, we are interested in the whole of Scotland. Do you have a view on Scotland as a whole, rather than just the Highlands?
I am not sure what to add, except that changes are coming nationally with the potentially vulnerable areas in the new mapping. We are keen to see how that might affect future development opportunities. Potentially it could impinge on options for the future, which is something that we need to be acutely aware of.
To develop the point that Jim Hume is trying to make, in previous work that the committee has done with NFU Scotland on climate change adaptation there were conversations about the need for dialogue between local authorities and farmers on what use certain fields might be put to. For instance, would low-value crops be planted in those fields because there is every chance that in the management of floods they would have to be used for water run-off? Are such conversations with local authorities already happening, or do we need to put momentum into that nationally?
It would certainly be useful to have a long-term focus and to get a guide on those kinds of issues nationally. As I said, we have clear processes for minimising any risk of flooding in the future. We are also very aware of current flood alleviation schemes, but a longer-term view might be beneficial.
We are dealing not just with new communities but with existing ones that have to deal with coastal flooding as well as inland flooding from rivers. How do we reflect that in our remarks about NPF3? It is often the older housing and older communities that Sarah Skerratt wants to build on that are extremely vulnerable, especially the coastal ones. I am sure that Alex Fergusson sees a similar situation in Dumfries, for example.
Dr Skerratt, as head of the land economy and environment research group at Scotland’s Rural College, do you think that a conversation is starting to happen with land users about river basin management further downstream?
Yes, very much so.
Is it in its infancy?
Within our consulting division, we have a specialist unit that looks at the environment and environmental implications of different land-use activities. The unit works closely with our agricultural consultants. As Mr Hume has said, it is a relatively new field. There have been environmental specialists in the organisation for a number of years, but setting up the unit recognises the growing imperative of these issues, so we are integrating those into the advice that is given to farmers and land managers on larger estates with whom we work.
I can respond to this because, in a previous incarnation, I was chief executive of Scotland’s Rural College for quite a long time. There has always been an issue with flooding on major rivers, such the Nith and the Tay. They might not necessarily express it in these terms, but farmers often acknowledge that they have land close to the river that is at greater risk, so they will plan around that. The bits that become difficult to manage are often simple things such as rabbit burrows that weaken the riverbank, so that the first time there is real spate, the bank is breached and the farmer has problems, and it is a major cost to re-establish the bank.
I am from the farming community. We often hear that farmers cannot maintain some ditches, drains and burns. In the middle of Hawick, half of the river is backed up with gravel and the Hawick flood risk management group has been looking for the gravel to be extracted, as has always happened. We are seeing the same in the Somerset levels of course. According to what I hear, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency keeps saying no.
Are you asking about the maintenance of rivers, such as we have seen with the diggers down on the Somerset levels, not being allowed for environmental reasons?
Yes. Is that something that you recognise?
I could not comment on SEPA’s budget for that.
It is not necessarily about the budget but about the fact that people are not being allowed to dredge or take out gravel from the rivers as they would have done years ago. People now have to have a licence to do that.
Taking gravel out is certainly more controlled than it was; that is the better way to describe it. Historically, if we look back 30 or 40 years, farmers would work on riverbanks of their own volition and it is now much more difficult to do that.
It can also be an urban issue. As I mentioned, in the centre of Hawick half of the river is gravelled up, and we have continual flooding.
On the same theme, there may be one or two other matters related to city regions, rural areas, coasts and islands that we want to look at in the spatial strategy. Dick Lyle has a question on one of those matters.
Professor Thomas touched on this issue when he talked about providing local jobs. The Scottish Government has a zero waste strategy, but waste still passes by other waste as it travels from one part of the country to another. In fact, earlier this morning, I discovered that we are even exporting waste to Wales.
The waste strategy undoubtedly has a spatial dimension. We must obviously think about that issue, given that creating waste is a major human activity. Does anyone wish to comment on waste?
I will comment because the aquaculture industry has been in discussion with the Scottish Government about that specific issue. We have encountered situations whereby waste has had to be tracked from sites over long distances. In fact, until recently, the nearest disposal site for some types of waste was Doncaster, which is a long way away. Developing a strategy that is regionally based, in order to reduce the distances that you have to travel, is something that we must take on board, but discussion on that matter has begun.
In many ways, there must be a refocus in rural Scotland, so that waste is seen not as a problem but as an opportunity. An example is up in Shetland, where it is very expensive to ship glass out of the island. Consequently, a company has been set up that turns glass into gravel and sand for the building industry. It is that kind of low-level focus and trying to get into industry the thought that one person’s waste is another person’s feedstock, that will have a significant impact.
I will add to what is a hugely important point. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a scallop processing plant in my constituency. All the shells, which used to be disposed of in this country until SEPA decided that they should not be, are exported to Norway, where they are ground down for use in pet food. That is diabolical. We should be adding the value here—it is as simple as that. With a joined-up strategy we could do that.
Those are good points.
I have another example of joined-up use of waste. Last year—or the year before—I visited the North Harris Trust. It uses waste oil from restaurants to power the car that the ranger uses to go around the island. The trust also has a designated waste area where it recycles glass, waste oil and so on, so it is possible to designate sites. I am sure that there are numerous examples at that local level of seeing waste as an asset rather than a problem.
We have always discussed waste in that way. With reference to the spatial strategy, we thought that rural areas might well be affected by the use of sites for processing waste in the way that we have just discussed. Other places are used as transit sites.
We can perhaps consider these issues and move the debate on by thinking about wood. I am conscious that trees grow, and we could do with rather more of them, for all sorts of reasons that people will give us. The wood that we can get out of a sawmill is a useable and renewable source of housing material, and people might wish to comment on that. The waste wood is a wonderful resource for burning to generate heat, and perhaps power. Do we have a strategy for wood? I know that we are considering a spatial strategy, but wood is an enormous resource, and it could occupy a very large area of Scotland. Indeed, it already does: 18 per cent of Scotland is covered with wood, so it is rather important.
Thank you for teeing up that question for me so well—I much appreciate it. I am very supportive of exploring that issue further. We view the forestry sector as the ultimate sustainable development sector, which provides renewable opportunities to deliver rural employment, to benefit the environment and to help the Government to achieve its carbon targets. We are keen for forestry to be able to expand beyond that 18 per cent in a sustainable way, working with other land uses.
Renewable heat is the big issue in rural areas. Unlike urban areas, we can get large district heating schemes. The best way to do that is to replace the use of oil in businesses or domestic premises with biomass or wood. I fully support Stuart Goodall’s comments.
It is interesting that the Bank of Scotland survey about farmers found that the third most prevalent use of renewable resources is wood for burning. It is also interesting that a crisis has been raised by some farmers about land being taken over for growing trees. There seems to me to be a disconnect there, if farmers are using quite a lot of wood for burning in their premises and for their businesses.
I concur with what Stuart Goodall said. Long before I was an MSP, I did some studies in Europe—in Austria, to be specific—on the use of wood products. There, the smaller community heating plants were purely about creating heat, and the slightly larger ones were for co-generation, so the electricity was almost a by-product of heating water.
Those comments are fascinating. I would like to keep the issue of timber going for a minute; I know that Alex Fergusson wants to come back in.
I totally agree with you. If you were looking at the raw materials available and asking how to achieve the best value for the economy, the environment and rural employment, you would decide that the timber should be used for construction purposes. It locks up the carbon, it displaces other materials that have a huge energy input in their construction, and it provides local employment, so it gives a big boost.
There are a number of points to raise. Alex Fergusson is next, to be followed by Claudia Beamish.
I return to the biomass issue. I am a great believer in adding value locally wherever possible. To what extent is the fuel for biomass imported at the moment? To what extent are we self-sufficient? Are we capable of being 100 per cent self-sufficient?
Scottish and Southern Energy has consent to build a wood energy plant at Grangemouth.
And at Rosyth.
Yes, it was looking at four plants.
I want to focus on what I regard as a very interesting conversation about the opportunities from what is no longer waste but can be used in recycling. I am interested in the opportunities in wood—all sorts of opportunities exist. What changes should be made to the spatial strategy of NPF3 to facilitate these moves in rural Scotland? Do those opportunities exist already or are they separate to the NPF? Should new things be in the final version of NPF3?
I will respond to that and to the earlier point that was made about waste management in general. Obviously, it is a hugely contentious issue, but it has the potential to make the biggest shift in terms of benefits.
I return to Stuart Goodall’s points on biomass. What I saw on the continent were community heating plants, where local wood is burnt—brashings and bark are probably used, for example—to heat water or, for slightly larger plants, to co-generate electricity. Would that be a better and more sustainable direction for Scotland than the importation of energy and the use of large-scale plants that we are starting to see?
The great thing about a tree—apart from the fact that lots of carbon provides jobs in renewables—is that its different parts have many uses, and not only softwood but hardwood trees provide an opportunity for renewable energy. Moreover, by using trees, we help to bring back management into a lot of woodland so that it is cared for, which is something that we are missing.
So the community has 50 boilers working at different levels compared with one very efficient boiler.
We will take up a different theme and broaden out the discussion. What are the implications for rural Scotland of the proposed set of national developments and actions in the draft action programme? Are they positive or negative?
I will speak to one specific example. The central Scotland green network, as it is known, is a major and highly innovative approach. I must confess an interest because I chaired the Central Scotland Forest Trust for around 10 years, so I have been involved in the network.
People have suggested extending that to a national green network. Should that point be stressed further? I know that some of the evidence has looked at the idea.
We support the idea of a national ecological network to bring together all the green places, the biodiversity corridors and the landscape resources and to capitalise on them all in the same way that the central Scotland green network has done so successfully. We are delighted that the CSGN carries on as a national priority because it is an initiative that has done a lot of good work and I am sure that it will carry on doing so.
I know that there is no one here from the Western Isles, but I notice that Comhairle nan Eilean Siar has noted that Lewis and Harris, but not the Uists or Barra, have been included on the map in relation to the long-distance route. Presumably, these things need to be joined up as well. Should we be making comments on that? It was raised in its written submission; I take it as read that we have to ask the question.
It is a fair point. That is the environment map in the “A natural, resilient place” section. I do not know why the Uists and Barra have not been included; I have cycled through them and it was wonderful, so I definitely support that.
Thank you. That might lead us to a question from Alex Fergusson.
Talking of maps—well-spotted, convener.
Yes, we feel that the “Core areas of wild land in Scotland” map—I have with me here, in case people are unfamiliar with it—should be included in NPF3 rather than just referenced in Scottish planning policy. It is a very spatial issue; it is about a map and about particular places that people value. We think that the best place for the information would be on this green map—the “A natural, resilient place” map, which shows national parks, national scenic areas and biosphere reserves—rather than on an additional map of wild land.
I welcome John Mayhew’s comments on that specific point, although they fly in the face of the evidence submitted by APRS. That talks about the spatial guidance for onshore wind being extended to cover:
There is a continuum between those who would not have any areas excluded from renewable energy and organisations such as ours, which would rather have more areas excluded. Our members are concerned about the impact of large-scale wind turbines on the range of issues that we list in the submission, and we would very much like to see them excluded.
With respect, you are now talking about extending the policy to offshore renewables. I entirely accept that your members are entitled to take the view that they do, but they also have to be responsible and accept that there is a balance to be struck. How do we keep the lights on if we are going to have further exclusions?
There are offshore renewables, and there are other offshore renewables. A lot of them are genuinely offshore and virtually invisible for most of the time from most of the land. The others include the Tiree proposal—which is not going ahead for the time being—and the proposed development off Islay, which is so close to onshore that the turbines are effectively onshore.
Thank you for clarifying that.
We raised an issue, mainly among our comments on SPP, regarding the methodology that is being used to draw up the core areas of wild land. We have concerns about that: the Highlands have characteristic features that make the area suitable for renewables development, so we seek clarity on the methodology used.
The current methodology identifies some places that I can think of that are certainly not anything like wild land. I can think of areas that are not wild land, but there are other large areas, too. Thirteen of the 40 proposals are in my constituency, and most of them are not in areas where there is any likelihood of major development of that sort.
Is that not the same issue that would appear to have arisen with national parks? It is stated that there will be no development in a national park and then all hell breaks loose when there is a development on the edge of that national park. It is the same issue, expanded to cover wild land.
Sorry, I know that you did not propose that—I was not even suggesting that—but it is something that we will certainly have to comment on.
I was going to move on to another of the 14 developments. I will wait.
We had better get through them all.
Perhaps Nigel Don was going to discuss—
I was going to move on, too.
Let us have Sarah Skerratt next, then.
I was going to move on, too.
This is combined tactics, is it? Well, we have dealt with wild land, so let us hear from Claudia Beamish.
The point is connected. However, before I focus on the national long-distance cycling and walking network in the context of rural Scotland, I want to ask something about national parks.
Timescale.
It was about a general view, including the timescale, as Alex Fergusson has just highlighted in a helpful intervention. There was also a discussion about whether it should be rural or marine or indeed anything. I would like to know.
That is an interesting thought—“anything”. A marine national park is something that people have indeed talked about. I do not know whether that is part of our remit here, but it is on the table, without a doubt.
We certainly think that there should be more national parks. The national planning framework gives a special place to our two national parks, and it quite rightly says that they are exemplars of excellent management, sustainable development and so on. It praises them, and rightly so. Our argument is simply that, if they are so good, should we not have some more?
I wonder whether I can make an old comment of mine: what will happen to the bits in between?
Fair enough. I could answer that if you like—but perhaps others wish to contribute.
I think that we will move on.
That is fine.
I will express the contrary view. The existing national parks have not been without their problems, but they have been quite successful.
I have a question about that. I understand what Phil Thomas is saying, but I would also argue that a designation of a national park could be an economic development on its own in many regards. That has been proved in the two national parks that we have now. I absolutely agree that we cannot have virtually the whole of Scotland as a national park—we could, but it would slightly destroy the point. Scotland is a smaller country, in any case. However, there is an argument that there is huge economic development potential in the creation of a national park.
We will hear from Claudia Beamish next and then Sarah Skerratt. We will then come on to Nigel Don’s point.
My question is about the national cycle network, which is one of the 14 developments. I wish to ask the panel how it can really be relevant in rural Scotland. I am not in any way criticising its tourism value, as it will obviously bring employment, but how does it relate to local connectivity?
I shall say something first, to give Scott Dalgarno a chance to collect his thoughts.
I back up what Carroll Buxton said. There is no doubt that the national cycling and walking network has a tourism value, but the value to local journeys—functional day-to-day journeys—is less.
I have a brief follow-up question. You make a valid point and what I am about to say is not a criticism, but you have talked on a number of occasions about a steer from central Government. Is not it a two-way street and should we not be looking for local authorities that are doing good things to feed into whatever is happening and to inform the process? Does that happen?
Yes, and perhaps that is one way in which local authorities can learn from examples of good practice.
Do you have the opportunity to inform the process? The point that I am getting at is that you have talked about a steer for local government, but you are clearly delivering on the ground. You may have some good ideas, and local authorities in different parts of the country may have much to contribute. Is there an opportunity for them to feed into that process, so that the steer that comes from Government is well informed by local practice?
We currently get a steer through HITRANS, our regional transport partnership, which works closely with Sustrans. In fact, we have an officer in place who has a dual role with Sustrans and HITRANS and who is doing well in the effort to introduce a stronger local focus on walking and cycling. That gives us an opportunity.
Calum Davidson said that he wants to talk about these issues, so we shall hear from him before Sarah Skerratt comes back in. After that, Nigel Don has an entirely different line of questioning to move on to.
I return to one of the points raised earlier, because I would like to make an observation on the 14 proposals.
It certainly is. I know exactly what you are talking about. You recognise that there is a change in the way in which that industry is developing. In the past, hydro power was local and served a central market. We have turned electricity round the other way, because a lot more of it is being produced locally, but other kinds of energy are altering the spatial map of Scotland. That is recognised by hub developments, as we said earlier.
I want to follow up on the national parks discussion. In March, Scotland’s Rural College is hosting a discussion on whether national parks are a generator of economic development. I realise that the paper that will be produced from that workshop will be outwith the 60 days of the committee’s engagement on the issue, but we would be happy to furnish you with a copy.
We will come back to that. Alex, is your question on the same point?
No—it is on a slightly different point.
Nigel Don has been waiting patiently, so I ask him to come in now.
I am always patient, I hope. The comments about the national cycle network are helpful, because they lead me to my point about moving people around rural communities, one of which I represent.
Does anyone want to comment on extending the rail network?
My comments are not so much about extending the network, although we have had some good examples of making better use of the existing rail network for commuter trains, particularly around the Inverness catchment area. More commuter services are now provided in and out of Inverness—for example, from Invergordon, Alness and Nairn—and there are more opportunities to use existing infrastructure better.
Should we rule out Nigel Don’s suggestion about extending rail. Do you have any particular examples, Nigel?
I can always think of examples. In my area there is the example of the Forfar to Dundee line. Forfar is very much a dormitory town for Dundee. In Perth, the old railway line tended to go the Perth way, but that is not really the point. There are lots of dormitory places that could be connected without having to spend hundreds of millions on lots of miles of rail.
I will be equally parochial; I represent the neighbouring seat to Nigel Don’s. Were we to extend the line that he mentioned across from Forfar to Montrose, there would be a full circuit line around the county of Angus, which would have enormous benefits for our constituents. It would also allow people from that inland corridor to get by rail to Aberdeen, for example. With relatively little spend we could—if we can pitch parochially—do considerable good, I argue.
My point is that while that might be interesting in Angus—and might or might not be a sensible thing to do—I suspect that there are a lot of places in Scotland where it might be sensible.
That is worth flagging up.
I will add to that last point. There is also potential for getting not just cars off the road but timber transport, by putting in rail heads in one or two places. When the Borders railway was being argued for, there was a strong case to be made that it should go all the way to Carlisle, which would have taken a lot of timber out of the Borders and from Kielder forest for points south and north.
Energy storage and pumped storage is by far the most efficient and effective way of storing large amounts of energy. It will be crucial over the next 10 years—especially given that we are moving to offshore wind, which is a significant resource that requires storage.
Given the talk about pumped-storage hydro, what sort of schemes are being discussed just now? Are they existing ones or new ones?
There is one above Loch Lochy that the Scottish Government has consented to. Another one has been proposed above Loch Ness. I understand that there is an opportunity to retro-fit existing hydro schemes to be converted into pumped storage.
Is the Cruachan dam one of them?
Loch Sloy is the one above Loch Lomond.
Cruachan is a site in the development plan.
Yes.
Can we get clarification on the Cruachan situation?
The development is an extension to the existing pumped storage at Cruachan.
That is an interesting area.
I would not say that there are clashes. We point out that the single outcome agreements and community planning partnerships are mentioned right at the beginning. They are in the overall diagram and page 2 of the overarching statement; they are not anywhere else in the whole document. I understand that differentiation needs to be made at different levels of visioning and operating, but our concern is that the realisation and feasibility of these elements will be reduced if there is no explicit indication of how the connections can be made—the “golden thread” that is referred to in other documents. I have other points to make.
Does Phil Thomas want to throw something into that pot?
The document makes a good fist of trying to balance many problems, but we are concerned that there is a slight problem with the underlying policies, in that there are policy strands that interface in a way that is not entirely clear or comfortable. We have touched on that, and it is evident in the wider context.
Are there other comments on spatial policy and food security? The point is well taken.
Phil Thomas made an interesting point, although I am cautious about his first example, in that I think that many of the issues between forestry and agriculture have been sparked by conflict about high-value land rather than upland land use.
Does more forestry development happening on sheep hill ground affect our ability to feed ourselves?
If it was decided that all the higher ground would be planted with trees, obviously that would affect our ability to feed ourselves, but we are looking at a relatively modest expansion of forestry. A lot of our conversations with the National Sheep Association and individuals farmers have been about integrated models. For example, a sheep farmer may have a large area of land that has no shelter on it; lots of farmers are interested in the idea of shelter belt. If you take a shelter belt and then slightly broaden it, it suddenly becomes a commercial-scale forest that allows you to harvest the trees, while maintaining it brings in income, provides shelter and increases land productivity.
As a former trustee of the Borders Forest Trust and a hill sheep farmer, I concur. I have discussed the matter with Stuart Goodall outwith the committee, but I will put what was said on record. In my area around half the farms are tenanted farms. The land belongs to the landlord, so planting trees would be a problem. A tenant farmer planting trees could, however, be seen as the tenant improving the farm and be of value. It is in tenants’ interest to plant trees, as long as the landlord is willing. A bit of work could be done to double the area that could be made available for planting—at least in my area. I do not know the facts for tenancies, landlords and owner-occupiers across Scotland, but it would make a huge difference if it could be pursued. Do the panellists have a view on that?
The point is made.
The next meeting to discuss the land use strategy is in May and the Scotland rural development programme is being formulated, so the committee’s discussions on potential conflicts and how the other programmes could help to deliver the national planning framework are timely. The timeframe of that work is useful and you have opportunities to enter into dialogue on the land use strategy and the SRDP.
The timeframe is timely, but we seem to have one set of guidelines after another to deal with. I thank you for making that point. Does anyone have a final point to make? We have been considering how rural Scotland is affected by the NPF3, but many other things are going on at the same time.
I will make a quick point that follows on slightly from Alex Fergusson’s point about trains and extracting timber. We are examining that in respect of where longer distances need to be travelled. A big timber harvest in Scotland is coming to market, which is allowing us to create rural employment and expand the industry. A problem arises, however, in that people who are not used to timber trucks passing their houses do not often see that as the most attractive or welcome development on the roads. However, accessing the timber is a necessity.
Timber extraction is a network issue that fits in with the thoughts about a national spatial plan, so your point is well made.