Public Petitions Committee, 20 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 20, 2000

Official Report 188KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We have a number of responses on the current petitions, the first of which is from the Minister for Transport and the Environment on the issues raised in the petition about Alfred Terrace in Glasgow. The important part of the letter is where Mr MacLennan, Sarah Boyack's private secretary, states that, after giving careful consideration to all the information before them, including representations from the ward councillor, the community council, Hillhead Primary School board and nearby residential interests, Scottish ministers concluded that the proposal was generally in accord with the development plan and raised no planning issues of national significance.

It was considered that no planning reasons necessitated intervention by Scottish ministers. The application was returned to Glasgow City Council on 14 February for it to process. Consent was issued on 23 February. Now that planning permission has been granted, neither Scottish ministers nor the Parliament may intervene, as requested by the petitioners. It is suggested that the letter should be copied to the petitioners explaining that the Executive appears to have acted correctly in this matter and that the Parliament has no powers to intervene.

I have been in contact with people from Hillhead community council and various other bodies. They knew that this was a fait accompli, but they were bothered about the compulsory purchase of the land. However, they know what has happened and they accept it.

Is it agreed that we pass the letter to the petitioners, explaining that nothing more can be done by the Executive or by the Parliament? The Executive acted correctly.

This is a case where irregularities in the planning procedures have been quite easily identified by everyone—we pass this one over at our peril. It may be that a planning decision has been reached and that we have no powers to intervene, but we should be kicking up a fuss. You, convener, will know better than me the routes to do that. There have been irregularities where there should not be any.

The problem is that the houses are nearly built and are being advertised in the local press.

According to the minister's office, there are no irregularities.

My recollection of past meetings is that the land was bought by compulsory purchase order for use by the council and was subsequently sold to someone for development. In my view, that is improper use of compulsory purchase orders.

Do we prolong this? I spoke to folk and they said that, if this is out in the open, it makes other people aware of what is happening.

Can Pauline McNeill recall the irregularities in the planning procedures? Was it not a misuse of compulsory purchase powers?

It was. The land was purchased for the local school and the local community. It was made into a wee garden. The land was sold to a developer without anybody being told. There was a discrepancy.

The petitioner called on us to investigate the planning decision by Glasgow City Council. Our information is that there were no planning discrepancies or irregularities and no planning reasons for not allowing consent.

That is taking the narrow form of words.

The Executive could have pulled it in, but it did not.

We could point out, when we reply, that although there is nothing more that we can do about the petition, it is open to the petitioners to appeal to the ombudsman about how the matter has been handled by Glasgow City Council. The ombudsman is the appropriate authority to investigate local government matters. Is that acceptable?

It is more acceptable to me than doing nothing more would be.

That is agreed.

The next matter is the response on Haddington Infant School. We have a letter from East Lothian Council, setting out the various actions taken in response to petition PE182. The council stands by its basic position that

"inappropriate parking and inconsiderate parking by a significant minority of parents taking their children to and from the school by car was the main cause of the problems being experienced."

The council has drawn up an action plan, which includes the introduction of physical safety measures at and around Haddington Infant School, including the introduction of a high-visibility school safety zone with additional signing and carriageway markings. A junction adjacent to the school will be narrowed to improve the safety of those crossing with the school crossing patrol. The measures will be introduced during the summer holiday and so will be in place for the start of the next school term.

The council also intends to review the arrangements for the uplift and drop-off of pupils using contracted school transport. A meeting to discuss the improvements was held with the parents action group on 7 June.

Those steps seem to go some way towards meeting the concerns of the petitioner, who represents Haddington and district community council. It is suggested that the response be copied to the petitioner, asking him to indicate whether the community council is content with the developments. We need to close the matter and, if the petitioner is content, that can be done.

I would like to know the outcome of the meeting on 7 June. It would be interesting to know whether there was a generally agreed outcome on both sides.

We will ask the community council if it is content. If not, its members can come back to us.

We welcome the efforts that have been made to address the problems raised.

Absolutely. There has also been a response from the Executive. Members should refer to the yellow pages that they have in front of them—the additional paper for this petition. The related petition PE181 accompanied petition PE182. Petition PE181 was about two developments, one at the Maltings and the other at Lennoxlove Acredales/Briary Bank. On the development at the Maltings, the Executive has written to tell us that the issues raised in the petition will be taken into account as part of a public inquiry, which has been set up in relation to the planning application.

No planning application has yet been made for the development at Lennoxlove Acredales/Briary Bank. The public will, however, have an opportunity to make representations on any future application and the planning authority would have to take those into account.

There is some progress. The public inquiry will now address the concerns raised in the petitions. The planning application on the Lennoxlove Acredales/Briary Bank development has yet to be submitted and there is nothing that we can do until then anyway.

It would be inappropriate for us to try to influence a public inquiry.

Indeed—we cannot do that. The public inquiry seems to go some way towards meeting the concern of the petitioner, who represents the community council. It is suggested that the letter from East Lothian Council be copied to the petitioner and that no further action be taken, because the Parliament has no powers to get involved in individual planning cases. Are there any other views on that?

I think that what we have done is fine.

The final item is in relation to petition PE173. It is a letter from Aberdeenshire Council on the closure of the council's Ballater area office. It simply confirms the closure of the office and the steps that the council has taken on making alternative provision for people in the area. A press notice is attached to the letter. It is simply for us to note as correspondence.