Current Petitions
Free School Transport (PE368 and PE371)
We come now to current petitions. The first two are on school transport. PE368 from Robert Brown is on eligibility for school transport, and PE371, from John Calder, on behalf of the Banff Academy and other Aberdeenshire parents action groups, is on school transport entitlement.
We originally sought a response from the Scottish Executive, Aberdeenshire Council, West Lothian Council and COSLA to those petitions. COSLA has intimated that it does not wish to comment on the petitions, but we now have the response from the two local authorities and from the Scottish Executive.
The response of West Lothian Council to PE368 is that it has a lower distance requirement than the statutory requirement, and that it does better than statute requires it to do. It also spends more on school transport in comparison with its grant-aided expenditure allowance.
The council believes that, in the petitioner's case, he is just on the wrong side of the cut-off line for free transport. It makes it clear that there has never been a suggestion that there is an error in where the cut-off line is and there will always be cases on the margins, when people are unhappy about the lack of access to free transport. The council also points out that it takes safety issues into consideration in deciding how children should get to school, and it provides details on that.
Aberdeenshire Council takes very much the same view. It makes provision well beyond its statutory responsibilities and also considers ways in which it can guarantee the safety of children.
The Executive, in its response, covers much the same ground. On the more general question of whether the current legislation is adequate as it stands, the Executive believes that it is and that it gives local authorities wide discretion while requiring them to have regard to the safety of pupils if transport is not provided. The Executive takes the view that the existing legislation provides what it describes as
"an appropriate framework under which authorities can determine the provision of free school transport, taking account of the varied nature of journeys between home and school and particular local circumstances."
The Executive does not think that it has any specific role in monitoring the arrangements and suggests that any question about the manner in which an authority applies the legislation would ultimately be a matter for the courts to consider in the event of a case being taken to them.
Stewart Stevenson is here to talk to PE371, which relates to Aberdeenshire Council.
I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to conduct some research into this issue and I now have a document, which members of the committee can read at their leisure. The information that SPICe provided relates to a survey that was done in March 2001, so it is the most accurate and current available.
Contrary to what Aberdeenshire Council said, 25 of the 32 local authorities have policies in relation to school transport that are, in many cases, significantly, and, in most cases, to some degree, in advance of what the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requires. For example, according to the survey, West Lothian Council, to which PE368 relates, has a substantially more liberal policy of school transport provision than does Aberdeenshire Council. However, it provides free school transport to a smaller proportion of pupils than is the Scottish average. Even though the new regime is causing concern, Aberdeenshire Council provides 35.3 per cent of its pupils with free school transport, which is nearly double the Scottish average of 19.5 per cent. One can understand some of the financial difficulties that that must bring. Aberdeenshire Council claims that it is little different from other local authorities, but I think that the numbers that I have obtained suggest otherwise. The information in the response is slightly misleading, suggesting that only seven authorities are adhering to the requirements of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
The conclusion that I draw from all that information is that Aberdeenshire Council is being driven by financial considerations rather than pupil-safety considerations. That conclusion is supported by the amount of pupils it transports and the fact that it has moved to the bottom of the league table for standard of provision against the requirements of the 1980 act. On that basis, the point that I would make, and which the petitioners made when they talked to the committee, is that we should consider amending the education legislation that deals with school transport to ensure that safety rather than distance is the focus. That is particularly important in rural areas with relatively poor transport infrastructure.
Is your basic argument that the current legislation is not adequate and that the matter should be considered by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee?
Yes.
I would be inclined to agree with that view. Distance is one criterion, but, as we have just heard, child safety should be a paramount issue in rural areas, irrespective of distance. Although the policy has stood local authorities in good stead and they have been rigid about adhering to it, the fact is that we are in the 21st century and a review of that policy is long overdue.
Does Phil Gallie wish to speak?
I have no comment—I go along with John Farquhar Munro.
The lack of a response from COSLA makes the situation very difficult, because we have no indication of what the general local authority view is of the petitions. All we have are responses from the local authorities involved, in which they defend their position, and a response from the Scottish Executive, in which it defends the legislative position. Perhaps we should refer the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and ask it to consider whether it would look at the relevant provision on free school transport in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. In particular, we could ask it to examine the criteria—distance or safety of pupils—for applying that policy, as that is the petitioners' main concern. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
We have agreed to pass both petitions to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee with the recommendation that it should consider further whether the current legislation is adequate.
School Playing Fields<br />(PE422, PE430 and PE454)
The next petition, PE422, is on the protection of school playing fields, and is from Mr James Docherty. The petition calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to implement similar protection for school playing fields as applies in England under section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1988.
The committee passed the petition to the Executive in order to seek its views. The committee also sought details from the Executive of any proposals for legislative protection of school playing fields in Scotland, and how such proposals would compare with the position in England. The Executive's response confirms that the 1988 act does not apply in Scotland but states that various protections are available for school playing fields in Scotland. For example, school authorities and foundation—[Interruption.] Sorry—I am misreading the briefing.
As the petitioners pointed out, the 1988 act does not apply in Scotland. However, the Executive made it clear that, when the English legislation was being prepared, the conclusion was reached that a similar approach in Scotland was not necessary, on the basis of the provisions of the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 and of planning legislation. Those provisions mean that schools in Scotland have appropriate access to playing field facilities. The Executive's response lists a number of protections that exist in Scotland that were not available in England and Wales, the absence of which necessitated the 1988 legislation. Not least among those protections is national policy planning guideline 11 on sport, physical recreation and open space, which sets out a policy framework that planning authorities should have regard to when considering proposals for the redevelopment of playing fields. Local authorities should also discourage redevelopment where such redevelopment is likely to conflict with local needs, either now or in future. There is a general presumption against redevelopment except in limited circumstances.
The Executive also explained that sportscotland must also be consulted on planning applications and developments that are likely to prejudice or lead to the loss of playing fields. Scottish ministers must be advised when planning authorities intend to grant consent for any proposal that would involve the loss of a playing field where sportscotland has advised against the proposal. Ministers could decide to call in such an application at that stage.
The Executive's response also advises that the playing field that was the subject of the petition is being considered in the context of a proposed amendment to the Stirling local plan. The public will be fully involved in looking at that plan and will be able to lodge objections to it. Any unresolved objections can be considered at a local plan inquiry before the council adopts the plan. It is understood that sportscotland has already raised concerns about the matter with Stirling Council.
We have had an explanation from the Executive about why the position in Scotland differs from that in England. The Executive is clearly of the view that there are specific safeguards in place in Scotland to protect school playing fields. If we agree with that view, we may wish to agree to take no further action on petition PE422. In doing so, we may wish to agree to write to the petitioner suggesting that, in the event of the local authority making any proposal to rezone playing field areas in his local area, the most appropriate way for him to have his objections taken into account would be for him to participate in the local plan process. If we do not wish to do that, we could refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee, as it raises a planning issue. I suggest that the former course of action is the better one.
Do those suggestions refer to the specific—
They refer to the Stirling petition.
Sportscotland has already registered its concern about the proposal, which means that its concern will be considered as part of the local plan inquiry and that Scottish ministers could call in the proposal.
We have also been asked to look at the general principle. As a matter of general principle, we should accept that the safeguards that exist in Scotland are adequate and that people have the ability to defend their playing fields in cases such as that highlighted by the petition.
I am not sure that I go along with that fully, bearing in mind the fact that we still have to consider PE454.
That petition raises other issues.
I do not accept that the present situation is as it should be.
But you would be happy to say that, on the basis of what the Executive has told us about the safeguards that exist in Scottish legislation, we believe that there is no need to take further action on the petition. If the proposal to rezone their playing field goes ahead, the petitioners should take part in the local plan inquiry as a means of registering their objections to it.
I am quite happy with that.
We will leave it at that.
PE430 is from Mrs Glendenning and calls on the Parliament to consider whether it is appropriate for local authorities, as the owners of school playing fields, to be able to sell such assets and to grant planning permission to a developer when such a sale is opposed; and whether in the circumstances of an opposed sale, there should be legally binding guidelines on the consultative procedures to be used.
The petition relates to the proposed sale of a playing field at Broomlands Primary School in Kelso, for the purposes of house building in the area. The petitioners point out that that proposal is contrary to the development plan and that, according to the local structure plan, sufficient land for upmarket housing has already been identified for the next 11 years. Scottish Borders Council is of the view that the area of land in question, allocated in the Roxburgh local plan for educational purposes, far exceeds the requirements of the school.
We wrote to the Executive about the petition and have received a response. The Executive has taken the view that, although the issues in PE422 and PE430 are related, PE430 merits a separate response. Members have a copy of that response.
The Executive's response to PE430 covers much of the same ground as its response to the previous petition and provides details of the guidance and legislation that apply in relation to school playing fields. It makes it clear that, in dealing with any application relating to Broomlands Primary School, the planning authority will need to take full account of the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997, as amended, which details the circumstances in which the Scottish ministers must be notified of planning applications.
The purpose of the direction is to give the Scottish ministers the opportunity to decide whether to call in an application for determination or to allow the planning authority to determine the application itself. Importantly, as far as this petition is concerned, ministers must be notified of
"any development where a planning authority has a financial or land interest where what is being proposed does not accord with the adopted or approved local plan or has been the subject of a substantial body of objections".
The response confirms that the petitioner's view will be taken into account if an application comes before Scottish ministers.
On the petitioner's suggestion that there be legally binding consultative guidelines on proposed sales of this nature, the Executive takes the view that existing consultation arrangements are adequate. It refers specifically to the requirement for sportscotland to be consulted on any proposed disposal of playing fields. Any objection from sportscotland would trigger the notification arrangements that I mentioned.
The Executive's response also refers to the standard requirement in all planning applications to notify owners and neighbours, and to the requirement to advertise in the local press applications where the planning authority wishes to grant approval to a development that is contrary to the development plan. That allows the public 21 days within which to make representations.
The Executive is of the view that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect school playing fields in Scotland. If members agree, the committee may, as with PE422, decide to take no further action on the petition. It may also wish to write to the petitioner suggesting that, in the event of a proposal being made to rezone areas of playing field in their local area, they should pursue their concerns by objecting to any planning application or related proposal to amend the local plan. Alternatively, we can pass on the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee.
I would like the petition to be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee. I am concerned that local authorities, as the owners of school playing fields, can sell those assets, and are also responsible for granting planning permission. That conflict of interests needs to be considered further. I recognise that the Scottish Executive offers some protection, but I think that some external examination would be appropriate. I will make the same point in relation to PE454.
Is the 1997 direction not sufficient? It makes it very clear that ministers must be notified of any development where a planning authority has a financial or land interest, such as in PE430, and where the sale does not accord with the adopted approved local plan. Ministers then have the power to call it in.
Ministers have the power to call it in, but I honestly feel that additional scrutiny is needed in those cases. There should be an automatic call-in. I find it difficult to argue on the petition, bearing in mind the fact that we are also to discuss PE454. That petition makes the same point, although it refers to a different situation.
It is the same point. We can consider both petitions together.
I would welcome that if you were prepared to do it, convener.
The difference between PE454 and PE430 is that we are not talking about a school playing field in PE454; we are talking about a leisure playing field in ownership of the council. Further, we are considering a situation in which the development of a piece of land is effectively banned by the local plan and the proposed plan that will come out in the very near future. The land is already determined to be leisure ground, but PE454 sets the scene as being that despite all that, the council will go against its own views in the sale of the land. I dare say that the council will, ultimately, grant itself the planning consent that it requires to add value to the land. The situation seems to be unhealthy, and on that basis, I feel that PE454 should be passed to the Transport and the Environment Committee for it to consider. In so doing, I guess that it should consider PE430 as well.
Is it not the case that under existing legislation, given the subject matter of PE454, which is on South Ayrshire Council and the playing fields at Alloway, ministers must be notified of the development?
Ministers must be notified. At the same time, I am considering the principle. I do not like the idea that the planning authority and owners of the land are effectively the same arbitrator. I am not giving my opinion on whether that should be the case, but there is value in passing PE454 to the Transport and the Environment Committee and hearing its views on the matter.
We already agreed not to pass PE422 to the Transport and the Environment Committee, but you are suggesting that we pass PE454 on to it.
I had a reservation about that and said that PE422 was separate. I am suggesting that PE430 and PE454 are different.
All three petitions are similar; you think that there are flaws in the existing protection provided by law. Ministers have to be notified, but they do not have to take action on the matter; they can just ignore it.
That is the case with respect to PE430, but not PE454.
You are suggesting that we pass all three petitions, as a package, on to the Transport and the Environment Committee and ask it to consider whether any recommendations should be made.
We decided not to pass on PE422, as it was different, but I am quite happy to pass on all three petitions.
They all deal with deficiencies in legislation. Do members agree that we pass on all three petitions?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank all members for their forbearance this morning. That is the end of the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:48.