Official Report 178KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is an evidence session on the national planning framework 2, which was published by the Scottish Government on Friday 12 December. I welcome to the meeting Jim Mackinnon, chief planner, and Dr Graeme Purves, assistant chief planner, who are from the Scottish Government directorate for the built environment.
We are very grateful for the invitation to give evidence to the committee on the proposed national planning framework, which on 12 December was laid before Parliament for 60 days' scrutiny. Although we are more than happy to take the committee through the substance of the framework, I thought that at this stage it might be helpful to explain the background to it, our approach to preparing it and its general content.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr Mackinnon. I appreciate your point that designation as a national development does not imply a Scottish Government spending commitment. Notwithstanding that caveat, has somebody done a calculation of the estimated total cost to the public purse of all the developments that are now in NPF 2 and, if so, what is that figure?
I do not have that figure, Mr McLetchie. The costs of the Forth replacement crossing are in the public domain. We have not done the calculation to which you refer. A lot of the detail—for example on Glasgow rail connectivity—has to be worked out. Much will depend on the details of the scheme that is brought forward. As I indicated, a lot of the national development projects are for the longer term. Some of them, including the port enhancements and the transmission lines, will not be developed by the Government. In the case of those developments, the call on the public purse will be non-existent.
I accept that, but I think that the idea is to set out a programme or a plan for development up to 2030, which is a span of 22 years. Are all the elements in NPF 2 deliverable within that timeframe? I appreciate that such situations have an aspirational component, but is there any point in having elements in a planning framework if there is no prospect of their being funded?
They are capable of being delivered in the longer term. Another point that I would make very strongly is that there are some longer-term aspirations in the document that have not been costed and which do not feature as national developments. Those include the high-speed rail link to London and the concept of subsea cables—a kind of North Sea supergrid. They have not been put into the national planning framework because we do not yet feel ready to make that form of commitment. On the national developments, however, I have every confidence that the framework will feed into future spending decisions and is well capable of implementation.
I accept that we do not want to look at specific areas; the framework is about a Scotland-wide approach. However, regeneration issues are central to Scotland's economy. Will you say a bit more about how we can provide a framework within which local initiatives can be taken forward? There are some fairly big initiatives that involve the development of brownfield sites. There will be issues around the use of such sites—whether they are for housing, business or industry—and the transport infrastructure that will be needed to support them. How would you fit them into the plan so that there is some kind of structure to what develops over the next 20 years?
We identified two major projects that will be important for regeneration in the west: the Commonwealth games facilities and the Glasgow strategic drainage scheme, which will open up tremendous opportunities in the east end of Glasgow. Along with committed investment, for example in the M74, those projects will completely change the accessibility of that area.
In terms of time and consultation, how does "Delivering Planning Reform" fit in with the national planning framework?
The document that was produced on 28 October was signed by the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, two national park authorities, and six key agencies—Transport Scotland, SEPA, SNH, Architecture and Design Scotland, Scottish Water and Historic Scotland—along with the Scottish Property Federation, and Homes for Scotland. It was endorsed by the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Quarry Products Association in Scotland. The document sets out a series of actions and commitments that will increase the pace of reform in the planning system to deal with issues around efficiency and better outcomes.
The national planning framework 2 has had a long life. How does the present version reflect the changing economic circumstances in which we find ourselves?
As Mr McLetchie said, the document looks to 2030. In the housing industry, the number of housing starts has reduced significantly, but people still need houses—we are conscious of that. The framework is designed to iron out peaks and troughs, so the focus must be on the action programme. However perfect the process and the policy are, if they do not result in outcomes on the ground, we will ask whether they were worth it. We intend to take a more proactive approach in the action programmes in different parts of Scotland to see what we can do to help to deliver the policies and proposals in the proposed NPF, which was laid last Friday.
What levers will you use to ensure that that happens?
A lot will depend on the areas that are involved. For example, Inverness and the inner Moray Firth raise issues for Transport Scotland, Scottish Water, the local authority and the enterprise company. We will work with them to identify what needs to be done and by when. That will not necessarily involve the Scottish Government, except in the form of Transport Scotland. We will consider commitments that are made in the STPR, for example, and see what can be done to move the process to a better conclusion.
Many of us were slightly surprised and possibly disappointed that the strategic transport projects review did not prioritise projects or give a feel for when they might be progressed. Does the inclusion of some transport projects in, and the exclusion of others from, the NPF give us an idea of the priorities for the STPR? If not, how did you decide which transport initiatives to include in the framework?
That is a good question. We work closely with colleagues who deal with transport. When deciding whether projects were national developments, we considered the extent to which they met the criteria that Mr Swinney set out last September. That was the basis for our decisions on whether to include something in the national planning framework.
So Glasgow crossrail would not be seen as a national project.
The national planning framework contains stuff on cross-Glasgow connectivity as a national development.
Nine important strategic projects have been mentioned. Mr Mackinnon was right to say that one of the key projects—Rosyth international container terminal—is in my constituency. I expect much of the funding for that terminal and the certainty about it to come from the private sector—particularly from Babcock, which is located in the area.
That is a question that you ought to raise with Mr Stevenson or Mr Swinney; it is not really a question for me. I am talking about the national planning framework, which we have indicated is not a spending document. Issues of expenditure, funding sources and priorities are for ministers rather than mere civil servants.
Not quite mere civil servants, but a very good civil servant who swerved that question well.
That came up in the discussions about the Forth replacement crossing. The point that we wanted to make is that the junctions from the motorway to the bridge could be designed in such a way as to preclude the option of an Inverkeithing to Halbeath rail link or as to allow the route to be constructed at a future date, which would help to reduce journey times to the north. That was why we wanted that project in the review. It is about thinking about Scotland as a whole, rather than having a narrow local, subregional or regional focus on a piece of railway track. It is a small bit of infrastructure that would help all-Scotland connectivity, just as the Glasgow crossrail concerns not only Glasgow, as Ms Ferguson pointed out, but would allow connectivity from the north and north-east to the south-west.
I appreciate that the link would allow connectivity, but diverting the line up by Halbeath would cut out some other strategic locations that are currently on the main line route—Kirkcaldy and other parts of the Fife coast—and miss a potential pick-up point for many customers.
Such strategic decisions are what the national planning framework is about. A decision may have a beneficial impact on one area and a deleterious impact on another, but it must be made with a full understanding of the implications. The national planning framework is about providing you—the committee and the Parliament—with the opportunity to consider projects in the round and give us your views on what you would want to be altered.
Will you elaborate on the reasoning behind the grouping of different developments into the category of single national developments, particularly the reasons for grouping the projects around Glasgow and Edinburgh airports as one single project?
The draft framework talked about only Glasgow and Edinburgh airports as national developments, but there was understandable pressure from the north-east and Ayrshire to reflect the potential in Aberdeen and Prestwick airports. I am sure that Graeme Purves will correct me if I am wrong, but we have identified what the national development designation means for the different airport enhancements. They are about improving surface access by public transport, so we thought that we would bundle them together as a coherent package as opposed to separating them out, but the annex makes it clear what the national development status means for each of the airport enhancements.
That is right. When we examined the enhancements, it was apparent that the common theme and a big part of them all was improving surface access, particularly by public transport. Therefore, we thought that it was appropriate to package them together.
Do any of the enhancements for the four airports that are referred to relate to increasing capacity to meet increasing demand for air travel?
If a planning application were to be lodged for any of those airports, a decision would be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. With all due respect, that is lawyerspeak—that is what the law says.
I was going to come on to that, but is there not a proposal for an additional runway at Edinburgh airport?
In the west Edinburgh planning framework, land is safeguarded for a runway. That would be taken into account.
Are there similar proposals to expand the capacity of Prestwick and Aberdeen airports?
I am not aware whether there are proposals for extensions at those airports.
No requirement has been identified for additional runway capacity at Prestwick, although alternative runway configurations are being considered. Runway provision at Prestwick is extremely good.
I find it slightly puzzling that Prestwick and Aberdeen have been included in the national planning framework under the national development designation. It seems that by increasing the number of airports that are focused on from two to four, the Government has indicated that it is even more committed than the previous Executive was to meeting the anticipated increase in demand for air transport, when all we keep hearing about is how disastrous for the planet it would be if air travel were to increase. That would suggest—if one subscribes to that view—that the national planning framework should be used to impose a planning limitation on that projected increase in demand. In other words, if one agrees with the policy of limiting demand for air travel, both international and domestic, one should not allow for airport expansion in national planning frameworks.
We are talking about airport enhancement that has a strong focus on surface access to the airports in question. We make no assumptions about future passenger numbers at those airports—we do not have the expertise to do that. I am sure that you would agree that Edinburgh and Glasgow airports are not the easiest in the world to get to and from if one compares them with airports such as Schiphol, Munich and Copenhagen, which are very well served by public transport. That is the focus of the NPF designation.
Jim Mackinnon mentioned the high-speed rail link. We have not identified that as a national development for a number of reasons, one of which is that the Scottish Government does not have the power to deliver that on its own, as most of the infrastructure would have to be provided south of the border.
As a policy position, the Government does not believe that improving access to the airports and their connectivity to other parts of the transport system will have an effect on the demand for air travel.
It is difficult to say whether it will or whether it will not. It may well be that, even if the number of flights stays at existing levels, people will be able to get to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports more easily and will put less pressure on the roads in and around those airports. People will be able to choose whether to go to those airports by public transport or private car.
That is entirely laudable, but some of the Government's partners have suggested that one way to limit air travel would be by way of congestion on our roads. That is rather difficult to square, in my view.
I made the point at the outset that it is not for the national planning framework to make policy on transport, energy and waste, but to deal with the consequences. If you wish to have a more detailed discussion about policy on aviation and airports, that is probably a matter for Mr Stevenson and transport officials.
I will follow up on David McLetchie's questions. If rail or road links to airports were improved, we would expect an increased flow of passengers into airports. You mentioned the expectation that it would be easier for passengers travelling into Scotland to commute once they arrive at airports. It could be argued that you are building in an assumption of increased passenger transport at airports. The question is how that ties in with the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, with various global changes and with the economic situation.
On passenger numbers, you rightly pointed out the challenges around climate change and the current economic situation. Travelling to continental Europe—certainly the euro zone—is not the most attractive proposition for many people in Scotland now, because they will not get terribly good value for money. However, there could be an increase in the number of people coming to Scotland by air from the euro zone.
Mr Mackinnon has hit the nail on the head. When we start a project, we expect to finish it. Whether or not we have the resources to finish the Edinburgh tram project, which is subject to a capped amount, is debatable, but we need, at any rate, to consider what is deliverable under the framework, what can be costed out, what public funding has to be put into projects to make them deliverable and whether or not the resources will be available in the next 21 years to achieve that. The next question is how to do that in partnership with local planning authorities, bearing in mind the deliverability of some projects, which will rely on a co-ordinated approach being taken.
You are absolutely right—that is why we are committed to developing an action programme approach to the implementation of the national planning framework. You are also right to say that local authorities, along with enterprise agencies and other Government agencies, are key partners in that process, which will involve hard decisions.
There will clearly be a need for resources to fund work on filling out the plan that is before us. For example, road networks around Grangemouth freight hub will need to be improved. I accept that you are not transport officials, but what discussions are you having with transport and enterprise partners about how the list of priorities will be developed?
We have had a number of discussions with Transport Scotland and with colleagues in Falkirk Council and the port authorities in the area. If the Parliament agrees that Grangemouth freight hub should be a national development, we will want to intensify discussions with those groups and individuals. Network Rail will also be important in that context. However, we do not want to do anything that will prejudge the outcome of Parliament's consideration.
I would like to localise the issue slightly, to enable me to understand better the role of the planning framework. There are proposals for a new rail freight terminal—not expansion of an existing terminal—in part of the region that I represent. NPF 2 refers to Rosyth and Grangemouth and to intermodal links between those facilities. If someone outwith the Government and agencies proposed to create a new rail freight terminal in the centre of Scotland, with a capacity of 1 billion square feet for containers, how would that fit into the overall planning framework, given that the project would involve changes to rail networks and other transport links, including road networks, if it went ahead? Would it fit into the planning framework?
Can you clarify which area you are talking about, Mr Wilson?
I am talking about the area next to Gartcosh. I was referring to the planned Kilgarth rail freight terminal.
A planning application would be lodged with North Lanarkshire Council, which would take into account what was in its development plan, including the Glasgow and Clyde valley structure plan. It would have regard to a range of other considerations, including the national planning framework, the views of Network Rail, communities and others, and it would come to a view. A planning application would be made in the normal way.
The point that I was trying to make was about competing demands. Any of the 32 local authorities could come up with a local project that might impact on the national planning framework. In such cases, would the Government decide that someone else—either a local authority or private sector body—had come up with a better proposal and that the Government should therefore reconsider the proposal in its framework?
We are not transport experts, but advice would be taken from Transport Scotland, Network Rail and others about any such proposal. It might be notified to the Scottish ministers, in which case we could exercise the ability to call in the proposal. However, I do not think that the Government is trying to stifle local innovation, particularly in relation to projects that contribute a lot to the local, regional and national economy. There is no sense that NPF 2 is a fixed blueprint. If other proposals came forward that offered potential benefits, the Government would be keen to see them progressed, subject to a suitable understanding of their impact on other projects and the wider rail system, for example, and of what they would contribute to the central purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth.
I am sure that every member knows of a major project that they presume has wider implications than just for the local area. We discussed Edinburgh and Glasgow airports earlier. Aberdeen and Prestwick airports felt that they were being excluded earlier in the process. The framework has been described as almost a living thing. We have seen changes in that coal and gas power stations were previously not designated as national projects, but now two of the national developments relate to power stations. How did that come about?
That is a fair point. You are right to say that Prestwick and Aberdeen airports were not included as national developments in the discussion draft. We listened to the responses on that as well as to the responses on the new port at Loch Ryan. To give the document a much stronger all-Scotland focus, we have adjusted the proposed framework, which was presented to Parliament last week. It is not about restricting different solutions that might be proposed.
The convener also asked about the power generation developments.
Yes. I am interested in knowing whether the criteria against which the decision was taken to include those developments were the same as those that were used for other developments, such as Aberdeen and Prestwick airports. Did common principles apply? There is no reason to think that they would not.
What happened with power generation developments was similar to what happened with the airports. We gave a locational steer in the discussion draft that it would be sensible to locate any significant new base-load capacity at the sites of existing power plants. However, we did not make that a national development. In responding to the discussion draft, the power companies made representations to us that they thought that it would be helpful if it were included as a national development. We considered that with our energy policy colleagues and concluded that it was a good idea. That is how we got to where we are on the matter.
I am still concerned, though, because the framework sets out new planning arrangements for significant projects in Scotland on which you were lobbied on two occasions. Were changes made because of lobbying pressure from power companies or the airports? Are we getting off to a bad start in that regard? Hard decisions must be made, which means that you have to say to power companies and BAA that you are deciding on your priorities. Are you adding things to the framework because of political pressure?
Absolutely not. We published the discussion draft at the beginning of January, took account of representations that we received and adjusted the framework in the light of those. The projects that we have included as national developments make sense to us as contributions to the Government's central purpose. Specifically, they met the criteria that Mr Swinney set out last September.
Okay. You said earlier that the parliamentary process gives the opportunity to alter the framework. Through the consultation, power companies and others have been able to change the nature of some of the projects in the framework because of their lobbying pressure. The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 requires Scottish ministers to have regard to any resolution or report from a Scottish Parliament committee made during the period for parliamentary consideration. If the committees come up with similar arguments about projects, will they be given the same sort of weight as the industry lobbying was? We know that many committees, including the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee though not necessarily this one, will consider specific projects. If they decide that they are not happy with something and want something done about it, what weighting will the minister give to their views?
The minister will give considerable weighting to committees' views. I point out that there were other projects that people responding to the discussion draft wanted to be included as national developments but which we decided did not meet the criteria. It was therefore not the case that things could go in as national developments because that was what individual stakeholders wanted—we did not take that view at all. We are in this parliamentary process for the first time. The 2006 act requires a 60-day period of parliamentary scrutiny, and ministers will have strong regard to what the Parliament says on the national planning framework. That will be hugely influential on their decision on what should be in the final framework.
You said that you did not accept all representations. What projects came forward that did not end up being included?
Graeme Purves can probably elaborate on that in more detail. However, I recall that, for example, when we held a session in north-east Scotland, there was pressure to have Peterhead harbour identified as a national development. We did not think that Peterhead harbour, important though it is for the fishing industry, merited that approach. Graeme will be aware of other projects.
Indeed. A document that has been provided to the committee lists 52 candidate national developments, which were projects that were proposed to the Government for our consideration. We considered them all, including their potential environmental impacts. Ultimately, we did not include them, largely because they did not meet the criteria that ministers had announced to Parliament in 2007. We did a formal assessment of the projects against the criteria, which we can make available to the committee.
We also commissioned an independent consultant's assessment of the reaction to the national planning framework—the committee already has a copy of that. The processes that we have followed are transparent. We have given you all the material that we think is relevant, but if you want more, we are more than happy to provide it. A substantial volume of material can be put at your disposal—the small document in front of you is the tip of a very large iceberg.
One difficulty for the committee is the timescale for getting through the detail. Some of the questions perhaps could have been answered if we had had time to do that, but I appreciate your guidance on where to go for that information.
I am perhaps going over ground that has been covered by others, but I want to be clear. The Government identified projects of national importance in the consultation document, but other projects in specific localities then emerged that it was thought could be included because they were national and helped the framework to have an all-Scotland focus. How did you achieve a balance? If the Government set out with a list of national projects, it must have known what all the national projects actually were. Did the criteria have to be adapted in some way? How did you achieve a balance?
As Graeme Purves said, we evaluated 52 projects. People came back to us with their own ideas on the discussion draft—it was a discussion draft rather than a blueprint that we did not want to change—and we listened to what people said. Some other developments were suggested, and we applied the strategic environmental process to them, which is required as a matter of law. We came up with a revised list, including rail enhancement around Glasgow, the power stations that Graeme Purves mentioned, and the Loch Ryan development. We basically listened to what our stakeholders said and evaluated any ideas against the original criteria to produce a revised list.
A couple of projects were not included in the discussion draft because, when we issued the draft, the project promoters had not made a final decision on how they wanted to proceed. For example, Stena Line, which is one player in the Loch Ryan port development, had not made a final decision on whether to relocate. Similarly, at Hunterston, there was not a clear project on the table when we issued the discussion draft. The projects were subsequently firmed up, and representations were made to us. They were assessed against the criteria and scored well.
There are no other questions from the committee. I thank the witnesses for their time this morning; we appreciate their evidence.
Meeting continued in private until 12:23.