Transport and the Environment Committee, 08 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 8, 2003

Official Report 204KB pdf

---

Petitions

We have eight public petitions to consider today, some of which cover the same subject, so we have grouped them into five headings. As we are approaching the dissolution of the Parliament, some of the petitions that we are considering now or that we will consider in future meetings might not be considered fully prior to dissolution. The committee is required to refer back to the Public Petitions Committee any petitions that do not reach satisfactory completion in our minds prior to the dissolution. The Public Petitions Committee, when reconstituted after the election, will decide whether to refer such petitions back to newly constituted committees. If we do not finish the consideration of a petition between now and the dissolution, the petition will not necessarily die. We will have the power to keep the matter live, if we feel that further work can be done on it.

---

Opencast Mining (PE346 and PE369)

At our meeting of 9 October, we agreed to write to the Minister for Health and Community Care to ask about research on the impact of opencast coal mining on public health. We welcomed the indication that the relevant national planning policy guideline was to be reviewed, but we had further questions on health matters. At that stage, we agreed to copy any relevant correspondence to the Health and Community Care Committee to keep it informed on the health issues.

We have now received a further response from the Minister for Health and Community Care to our questions on health issues; members should have a copy of that letter. Members should also have received a copy of another letter from the primary petitioner of Scotland Opposing Opencast's petition, who encloses some articles from The Lancet Oncology on respiratory illness relating to pollution in the air, including particulates.

I look to the committee for guidance on a suggested course of action. I suggest that the issues that are directly within our remit, such as planning powers, have largely been dealt with. The Executive has said that it will review the relevant national planning policy guidelines, and the committee agreed on that way forward when it considered the matter previously. However, questions still exist on the health aspects of opencast mining, which have not been fully resolved and which are outwith our direct remit. Perhaps we should, therefore, decide that although we have concluded consideration of the aspects of the petition that are directly within our remit, we should refer the minister's correspondence and the committee's consideration of the health issues to the Health and Community Care Committee, for its consideration.

I agree that we should refer the matter to the Health and Community Care Committee. The fourth paragraph of the letter of 2 December from the Minister for Health and Community Care states:

"The Executive's Health Department does agree … that there is a need for further research to address current uncertainties surrounding the general relationship between environmental exposure to airborne particulates and respiratory ill health."

However, it goes on to say that

"The relationship between respiratory ill health and opencast development is not regarded as a major driver".

If the Executive recognises that there is a need for research in that area, we might legitimately ask what it is doing to promote such research. If it is doing generic research into the effect of particulate matter on respiratory health, it does not matter whether the research is conducted using opencast mining or anything else—the important thing is that it is done. Generic research would be relevant to opencast mining because it would still be scientific evidence about the effect of particulate matter on health.

We should refer the matter to the Health and Community Care Committee, but it might also be appropriate for us to write back to the Minister for Health and Community Care, pointing out that the implication of his letter is that the Executive should be doing something about the matter.

I agree with the convener. The jury is out on whether there is any point-source pollution from opencast mining operations especially because of particulate problems. I understand that the University of Strathclyde is keen to pursue some research on that subject, especially in the coalfield communities.

In the circumstances, it is incumbent on the committee to keep the issue alive and the only way we can appropriately keep it alive is to pass it to the Health and Community Care Committee, to ensure that that committee is aware of the concerns. I am not sure whether that committee will have time to do anything about it before the dissolution of Parliament. However, at least it should make the decision to hand it back to the Public Petitions Committee to keep the matter going and ensure that any research that is undertaken is followed up by the appropriate parliamentary committee. We will then be able to come to a conclusion about whether there really are the health effects from opencast mining that people in nearby communities believe exist.

I, too, agree that someone should examine further the health matters. I also agree that the matter should be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee. I presume that, if that committee does not have time to consider the matter before the election, it will consider it after that.

I agree that we should refer the matter to the Health and Community Care Committee. We should also refer that committee to the discussion that we have had about the subject today.

There is broad agreement on the way forward. We will correspond with the petitioners on the basis of the evidence that we have taken so far, relating to the areas where the NPPG is going to be placed under review, and we will inform them that we have decided to refer the health issues to the Health and Community Care Committee. As the petition is passed to the Health and Community Care Committee, it will be given a copy of all relevant committee discussions and any correspondence that this committee has received on the issue. Are we all agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Playing Fields (PE422, PE430 and PE454)

The second group of petitions, PE422, PE430 and PE454, concern the disposal of playing fields. When the committee considered those petitions initially, we agreed to write to the Executive for its view on the implementation of current planning guidelines on the disposal of playing fields. The Executive's response detailed the current planning system, and the measures that the Executive and sportscotland have undertaken to improve the system.

The committee then agreed to write to sportscotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding their views on the adequacy of current guidance and their implementation of the guidelines that are currently being developed by the Executive. A cover note that was circulated with the petition recommended that—considering the preparation of NPPG 3 under a policy advice note to support NPPG 11, and COSLA's and sportscotland's comments on the current guidelines on protecting playing fields—the committee may decide that there is no need to take further action at this time.

We could agree to conclude consideration of the petitions and write accordingly to the petitioners and we could provide them with copies of correspondence from each of the bodies with which we have corresponded. I seek members' guidance on whether they wish to accept that course of action or to pursue another.

I understand why we might want to do as the convener suggests, but I have two concerns about this issue. Torbrex community council highlights a paragraph in section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in England and Wales. Unfortunately, I do not know what that legislation says about how we could strengthen the position in Scotland, and there is no explanation in the papers. I do not feel that I have all the information that would allow me to come to a final conclusion as far as that is concerned. It might be that the new guidelines that are being drawn up by the Executive will cover that legislation and might prove to be adequate.

I noted another issue from the covering paper that does not relate to particular planning issues. Sportscotland asked the Executive about preparing guidance on the appropriate standards for playing field provision. So far, sportscotland has been unable to secure the Executive's support for that work. I would have thought that that was a reasonable request for sportscotland to make, given that such guidance would provide a framework in which local authorities could operate in terms of planning guidelines and so on by establishing a standard. The committee must decide whether it wants to support sportscotland in that call—I would certainly like to ask the minister why it was rejected, because it would have been a reasonable course to take.

To cut to the quick, I suggest two things. First, we should ask the minister why the Executive did not support sportscotland's view on standards. There might a good reason why the Executive did not support it—I do not know. Secondly, we can ask for further explanation of what section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 in England and Wales says and compare it with the Executive's position in order to find the best option.

I picked up on Bruce Crawford's second point. I have read the papers and it seems to me that there is a gap between the guidance and appropriate standards. It is fine to defend the existing standards, but what constitutes reasonable provision of playing fields? Although that matter is obviously not within our remit, we have identified the gap, so should we draw it to the attention of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and ask it to pick up that detail?

It could come under the guidelines to local authorities on planning—for their own provision, provision on a housing estate or provision by the education authority. If whoever forms the Government after the Scottish election in May decides to hold a consultation on planning, the issue could be considered as part of that. That would be a reasonable way forward for the Executive. That is why I think that the issue falls within our remit.

I agree thoroughly with what Bruce Crawford has just said. Despite the assurances that we receive from the Executive, we continue to lose play space and sports space.

I am not satisfied by paragraph 13 of the cover note, which states:

"The Executive response states that ... Sportscotland often negotiates alternative sports pitches with developers".

Often those sports pitches are a long way from areas that were local and accessible to the people who used them. We do not want young children to have to travel ever further to reach play spaces that should be local and accessible. We should do everything that we can to keep the issue alive. We should be aware of the fact that this is a cross-committee issue that also involves the Health and Community Care Committee and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

I understand that section 77 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1988 was addressed in previous correspondence on the petitions. That correspondence has not been distributed with the papers for today's meeting. I suggest that we dig it out and provide members with copies of it, so that we can consider whether we are satisfied with its content. We can keep the petitions live in that respect, but we do not need to write further letters on section 77 at this stage. If members are still not satisfied after they have considered the correspondence, we can consider taking other action.

In its response, COSLA indicates that it has consulted section 77 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1988 and believes that the current legislation is sufficient.

Bruce Crawford asked about sportscotland and the issues that it has raised with the Executive. There seems to be consensus among members that we should ask the Executive how it intends to respond to sportscotland and whether it intends to issue guidelines on appropriate standards for playing field provision. Do we agree to write to the Executive on that issue, which sportscotland raised and which Bruce Crawford has highlighted? Do we agree to consider the petition further once we have received a response to that question and once the correspondence concerning section 77 has been circulated to members?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Telecommunications Developments (Planning) (PE425)

Petition PE425 concerns planning procedures for telecommunications developments. We considered the petition before the summer recess and raised a number of issues arising from it. The Executive has since responded to us on those issues. The Public Petitions Committee is now asking the Transport and the Environment Committee whether we would welcome formal referral of the petition to us.

I remind members that we have agreed to take evidence on the planning procedures for telecommunications developments. We could consider the issues that the petition raises at the meetings that we have scheduled over the next few months and advise the Public Petitions Committee that we have already decided to review the planning process for telecommunications developments and will be happy to advise it and the petitioners of any thoughts that we have once we have completed that process.

What does a formal referral of the petition mean?

The Public Petitions Committee has not formally referred the petition to us for detailed consideration. The Public Petitions Committee is asking us whether, on the basis of the Executive's response, we want the petition to be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee. We could then consider the petition by taking evidence, appointing a reporter, corresponding with the Executive and taking whatever other action we deemed fit. We are agreed that we will conduct a review of the committee's work on the subject and of the experience of implementing the new regulations that the Executive has introduced. I suggest that that work overlaps with the issues that the petitioner has raised and that we should continue with the work that we envisaged carrying out. We should agree to advise the Public Petitions Committee of that and say that we will advise it of our conclusions. The petitioners can then be advised in due course.

I am happy with that approach if it means that we will carry out most of the activities that we would have to do if the petition was formally referred to us anyway. It is a preamble, at least, to gathering evidence.

Have we already informed the petitioners that the committee intends to take evidence? If not, it would be sensible to write directly to the petitioners to inform them of that and to tell them that we will consider whether the petition should be referred formally to us subsequent to that evidence-taking process. We could invite them to consider giving evidence during that process.

Yes.

Will we give early consideration to what evidence we are going to seek? I am thinking in particular of evidence on mast sharing. Will we write to telephone companies and local authorities to ask whether any progress has been made on that? That should be done well in advance of the committee taking evidence so that we can be prepared.

We are delving into the areas that we will review when we consider the implementation of the new guidelines. We do not have to do that at the moment.

I was not saying that we should do it now; I was asking whether that should be scheduled.

Later today, we will consider our approach to the review and we can discuss those issues then.

It has been suggested that, instead of the approach that I proposed, we should ask for a formal referral of the petition so that it becomes part of the evidence that we consider in our review of the developments in telecommunications. That seems to be a sensible approach. Are we agreed that that is what we should do? We can then advise the petitioners that their petition will be considered as part of our overall review of telecommunications developments and that they will be kept abreast of our conclusions.

Does that mean that we have to ask for a formal referral?

If we ask for a formal referral, the petition becomes part of the evidence that we consider as part of our review.

My remarks have been pre-empted. I wanted to speak in support of the recommendation that we seek a formal referral. You have just outlined my reason. Earlier, you said that we would just inform the Public Petitions Committee of our inquiry, but it is important that we have a formal referral so that the petition becomes part of our telecommunications inquiry. Then it will be able to inform the questions that we ask during the review and we will be able to satisfy Angus Mackay's request by keeping the petitioners informed. By making the referral formal, the petitioners have to be kept informed of what we are doing. I recommend that we ask for a formal referral and do not just make an announcement to the Public Petitions Committee.

Are we agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning Process (PE508)

That brings us to petition PE508, on the implementation of environmental impact assessments. This is the first time that we have been asked to consider this petition, which calls for Parliament to review the implementation of environmental impact assessments and policy advice note 58 guidelines. The petition derives from the petitioner's experience of the applications by West of Scotland Water and Scotland Water for a water treatment plant in Milngavie. The committee's stance on petitions that relate to local issues is not to consider specific incidents. We consider such petitions only if they raise issues for the wider planning framework. I ask members to comment on the recommendations that were circulated with the covering note. I would like to know what course of action members would prefer us to follow.

It is tempting to get dragged into the original issue raised in the petition, because it was so tortuous. There are lessons to learn about how consultation should and should not be carried out. Particular elements of the community in the area around the Milngavie development proposals rightly have a grievance about the consultation process. I hope that the appropriate bodies have learned something from the harsh lessons of the recent past.

The convener has rightly asked us to consider the wider strategic issues. Strathblane community council's petition asks us to examine two issues that are not specific to the Milngavie application, but which are of wider significance. The first is a statutory requirement to consult appropriate community councils. I was surprised that that requirement does not exist. I thought that it did, but there you go. The second is the fact that developers who pay consultants to do environmental impact assessments also set the consultants' remits. The petitioners rightly ask whether it might not be more appropriate for local authorities to set a consultant's remit and, indeed, choose the consultant. Developers should still pay the costs, because it would not be appropriate for local authorities to do so. Those two issues are strategic in nature and are not associated only with the water treatment plant for Milngavie.

I was a bit surprised by the Executive's blunt refusal to re-examine those particular issues. I would have thought that it is reasonable for appropriate community councils to be statutorily consulted about planning applications and that we could re-examine the whole issue of choosing, paying and setting the remit for consultants in relation to environmental impact assessments, particularly as there is no third-party right of appeal for parties who want to object to a development going ahead.

The Executive might not want to consider such issues in isolation, but a planning review has been promised and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Executive could not consider those particular aspects as part of that overall planning review. The Executive will have to open the Pandora's box of planning anyway, so surely we should examine every aspect of it. We should have proper consultation on whether community councils should be statutory consultees and on who should choose, pay and set the remit for consultants who do environmental impact assessments. It is only fair that we go back to the Executive and ask whether it is prepared to re-examine those areas as part of its wider planning review; otherwise what is the point of having such a review?

Bruce Crawford took the words out of my mouth. I agree with everything that he said, particularly about consultants. I agree that developers should pay for them, but it would be much more sensible, and signify greater transparency, if a local authority committee appointed the consultants.

If we state in our recommendations that it might be appropriate to conclude the petition now, what does that mean? Would we not write to the Executive with Bruce Crawford's suggestions, which Robin Harper supported? PE508 refers to a specific case, with which I have been heavily involved for over a year, so I have a degree of insight to back up Bruce Crawford's request that we should bring the issue to the Executive's attention for any future review of planning. The Executive states in its response that it does not intend to review either the process of environmental impact assessments or the PAN 58 guidelines; it is being blinkered, and we must remove those blinkers and ensure that it reviews the guidelines.

I am involved in the case and with another local issue regarding the extension of a quarry, and it has become apparent that environmental impact assessments are not being accorded the status, weight and priority that they should be in the preparation of planning applications. The committee must review the EIA process to ensure that my opinion, which is gained from my experience with two local cases, is not generic to all planning applications.

As the environment committee, we are concerned that all planning applications take the environmental impact into consideration, and it would be useful to consider how the process works and whether EIAs are being accorded the status that they should enjoy.

I agree with everything that has been said. It is vital that consultation is seen to be done. That is where the process has broken down. Like Bruce Crawford, I thought that community councils would be one of the statutory consultees and I am surprised that they are not. It is right that all those matters, especially the weighting, should be considered. In fact, the weighting that environmental impact assessments have in the new planning bill should, perhaps, be a matter for parliamentary debate.

A degree of confusion may have arisen. The Executive's response on the question of consultation states:

"In accordance with the EIA Directive, the legislative requirements for public consultation in relation to the EIA process are tied to the submission of an environmental statement. Environmental statements must be advertised and the public given an opportunity to comment. These arrangements are in addition to the normal public consultation requirements associated with planning applications, which include neighbour notification and consultation with community councils. PAN 58 recommends even earlier consultation with the public in relation to EIA, at the scoping stage for example."

The question of consultation may have caused confusion, but it does not seem that community councils are excluded from the process.

That they appear to feel that they have been excluded is bad, and, according to the correspondence, they appear not to have been aware of the consultation process until the decision was taken.

I understand your point, convener. You are right to say that community councils are consulted about the process, but statutory consultation requires that the appropriate community councils be contacted directly by developers as part of the notification process. I am not sure that PAN 58 covers that aspect of the process, and that is the distinction that must be made.

It seems likely that major planning legislation will be introduced in the new session, and it is unlikely that major planning changes will be effected between now and the dissolution of Parliament. Therefore, perhaps several of the issues raised by PE508 would best be addressed when the Parliament is considering what changes it intends to make to planning legislation in general.

However, if we want to explore any of those questions, we could do so at the meeting that we have scheduled with the minister and the head of planning on general planning issues. We could notify the minister that we want to explore those issues as part of that meeting. Once we have talked to the minister, we could decide whether there is anything further that we need to do in relation to the petition.

That seems reasonable. When has the meeting with the minister and the head of planning been scheduled for?

The date has not been fixed yet. The clerks and the minister are negotiating.

Will we get a paper that outlines the areas that we will discuss at that meeting?

Yes.

That is fine with me, then.

Do we agree that we should explore this matter in the meeting that we have scheduled with the minister and the head of planning?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Water Treatment Plants (PE517)

Today's final petition deals with the environmental and planning issues relating to water treatment plants. This is the first time that we have considered the petition, which calls on the Parliament to investigate local authority regulation of water treatment plants as regards environmental protection and planning legislation, to investigate possible solutions to the problem of noxious odours and airborne bacteria from such plants and to investigate the level and method of investment needed to prevent the release of noxious odours and airborne bacteria.

I ask members to note that Susan Deacon, who is unable to attend the meeting today, has indicated an interest in the issue and members should have before them comments that she has submitted by e-mail.

This is an extremely important petition and deserves a lot of study. My concern is that we do not have time in this session of Parliament to do it justice.

The petition addresses the problem of odour, which seems impossible to deal with. We have come across it in relation to the spreading of organic waste and the burning of animal carcases in the Carntyne incinerator. We have to get to grips with the problem.

It is suggested that we write to the Executive for further information, particularly on how to achieve odour control. I have had personal experience of similar cases and I know that it is difficult to get local authorities to agree that there is a problem. In this instance, however, it seems that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is not taking responsibility either. The review of SEPA's responsibilities has not yet concluded and I hope that, when it is concluded, the gaps surrounding the issue of odour control are identified.

As the matter needs a great deal of investigation and input, which will take time, I think that we should also refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee so that, after the election, the petition can be picked up again by whatever committee has transport within its remit.

It is unfortunate that, because of her family bereavement, Susan Deacon cannot be here as I know that she has thrown herself into the issue energetically. She has sympathy with the position of the petitioners and has an informed view of the matter, given the particular interest that she has taken on the issue.

Trying to reflect Susan Deacon's views and the broad concern that members of the committee no doubt have, I would say that the number 1 priority is that this issue should not be lost simply because we are approaching the election. We need to find a way of parking it effectively so that we can be reasonably confident that it will be dealt with by the appropriate committee after the election.

My heartfelt sympathies go out to the petitioners and the people living in the area. While it does not form part of the Edinburgh constituency that I represent, I know the area reasonably well. The petitioners must be at their wits' end, as it is particularly difficult to persuade people who do not live in the immediate environment that there is a problem or that something needs to be done about it. Like noise caused by nuisance neighbours, the nature of odour means that it is not necessarily always present. Residents in those circumstances have difficulty persuading appropriate public agencies that there is a problem because people from those agencies are not there when the problems occur. Odours can consistently occur at certain times of the day or week and can make people's lives a misery. I hope that the committee will take a proactive stance on this petition, as the matter pertains not only to the people living in the affected part of Edinburgh, but is replicated across Scotland. Effective action must be taken.

Angus MacKay's final point is correct: this issue affects all of Scotland. As Maureen Macmillan pointed out, we have come across the problem before in relation to cattle incinerators, chicken litter and sewage plants. As Angus MacKay said, the folk involved must be at their wits' end. In Kirkcaldy, in the region that I represent, a sewage plant is causing a similar problem and the people are at a loss as to what to do about it.

As far as I am aware, the only legislation that has any effect is that which enables local authorities to act in relation to a nuisance of odour. However, the problem is that it is difficult to measure odour. It is down to the particular environmental health officer, together with the complainants, to take an action in court. The only successful case that I know of involved chicken litter in Kinrosshire. I was one of the councillors involved in the prosecution on behalf of the community. Odour is extremely difficult to control and it is difficult for local authorities to deal with. The legislation is difficult to enforce because you cannot measure odour.

The best way of keeping the petition alive might be to ensure that it gets to the committee whose remit includes transport after the election. That committee could give detailed consideration to the complex and wide-ranging issues that are involved. If we began a process of investigation, we would not be able to complete it and the job would be left half done. We need to ensure that a committee can present a recommendation to the Executive that will strengthen the legislation and give some succour to people who live in the affected areas.

If we initiate action, that would not stop us ensuring that the petition is referred to the relevant committee that is established after the election. It would be difficult for a reporter to complete the work in the time that is available, but we could raise the issue with the Executive. At a subsequent date, we could refer all the correspondence to the Public Petitions Committee, which would then refer the petition and the accompanying correspondence to the relevant committee after the election.

We must remember that there are technical ways of solving the sewage odour problem. The documentation that accompanies the petition gave us the details of that. The question is whether Scottish Water can be convinced to introduce the updated equipment or whether the Parliament will need to legislate to force it to do so.

I agree with everything that has been said. This is an important issue and we should either refer the petition to the Public Petitions Committee now or do so after getting a response from the minister.

I would like to know what the European position is on the matter of nuisance odours. Without meaning to be uncomplimentary, I would suggest that the issue is more of a problem in Europe, where temperatures are higher, than it is in Scotland. If European countries have come up with a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem, the Scottish Parliament, following a report by a committee, might want to consider introducing legislation to require minimum standards to be introduced by Scottish Water and so on.

There is a huge amount of work to be done on this. For example, the Health and Community Care Committee might need to consider what the health implications are. We can only scratch the surface prior to the dissolution of Parliament. Nonetheless, we should write to the minister and try to start the process by gathering as much information as we can because, as others have said, this is a problem that affects people across Scotland.

I hope that your party leadership has authorised your suggestion that we look to Europe to provide an answer.

I am not too bothered about that.

When we write to the Executive, we should ask about SEPA's responsibilities. As far as I am aware, SEPA does not have responsibility for sewage works. As I said earlier, the review of SEPA's responsibilities has not yet concluded. We could ask when the review will be concluded and whether the outcome will include consideration of odour control.

There is broad agreement that this issue must be addressed and recognition that it would be difficult for this committee to conclude consideration of the petition before the dissolution of Parliament. Do we agree to write to the Executive about the issues that are raised by the petition and the points on SEPA that Maureen Macmillan raised?

Members indicated agreement.

Once we have got that response, we will formally refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee in order to keep it live over the election period.