Local Government and Communities Committee, 21 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Official Report 284KB pdf

---

Scottish Planning Policy 11 (Physical Activity and Open Space)

For agenda item 3, which is Scottish planning policy 11, we have with us from the Scottish Government Helen Wood, who is a principal planner, and John McNairney, who is an assistant chief planner. Would you like to give an introduction before we ask questions?

Yes—I will take a moment to set out key points about the policy. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee about SPP 11, of which I understand members all have copies following its publication last week.

I will highlight a couple of points that are central to the policy and say a little about the process. The SPP sets out a national policy on planning for open space and for sport and recreation facilities. It highlights the importance of open space and the positive contribution that it can make to our lives. It aims to protect and enhance open space and the opportunities for sport and recreation. It provides guidance on a range of issues, such as quality, accessibility and maintenance.

Crucially, the SPP requires planning authorities to take a more strategic approach to provision by requiring them to audit open space and to prepare an open space strategy. The open space strategy is crucial to promoting a more strategic approach. It was highlighted as best practice in our planning advice note 65 and the previous guidance in national planning policy guideline 11 suggested that auditing open space and developing a strategy were good things, but doing that has not been a requirement and practice has been mixed. The key change is that SPP 11 introduces a requirement to follow that approach.

The strategy should safeguard valued spaces and is intended to guide resources. The process of auditing, involving the community and developing a strategy is also intended to have input into the development plan, which is the main vehicle that leads the planning system.

Protection is achieved largely through the development plan, but the SPP strengthens protection by containing a presumption against the development of valued and functional space. It protects against the loss of playing fields, requires ministers to be notified of a proposal to allocate for development land that is protected in a development plan and includes additional consultation on land that was last used for smaller sporting facilities.

As the committee knows, we consulted on a draft SPP last August. The draft was informed by a steering group that included a range of stakeholders. We received about 138 responses to the consultation, the large majority of which supported the SPP's objectives. The published SPP differs from the draft in several respects. The key difference is that we have dropped the reference to national minimum standards, which were previously a commitment. We have done that largely because of concerns about the practical implementation of those standards, the perceived lack of flexibility and the focus on quantity rather than quality. The approach of focusing on developing a strategy and using that to inform a development plan is intended to provide better local outcomes.

I am happy to answer questions on any of those points.

The SPP is particularly important and I had great hopes for it, but I am beginning to be slightly worried about several aspects of it. At present, the responsibility for giving at least a view, which is usually taken seriously by any local authority that is considering the planning aspects of disposing of a playing field, for example, rests with sportscotland. If the Government's internal review of sportscotland results in its abolition, who will be responsible for giving that view? Did you answer that question in your introduction when you said that such requests would go direct to the Scottish ministers?

The process of notifying the Scottish ministers is intended to protect the status of the development plan. We want to ensure that valued open space is protected in the development plan—that it is allocated as open space rather than something else. When a proposal to develop that land has been made, the local authority should not grant planning permission without notifying the Scottish ministers. That is what notification of ministers is about; ministers might or might not call in a decision to be taken by them.

We cannot address the issue of sportscotland. Our approach is that consultation has an important function, and whether it is undertaken with sportscotland or another body in the future we would expect the function of getting clear advice from some expert authority on particular proposals to remain.

In the internal review, what consideration is being given to the role of sportscotland?

There is no such consideration in SPP 11. No matter when that document was published, it would always seek to maintain consultation arrangements in relation to existing organisations. Those organisations might change in the future, but we cannot future-proof every policy. If there was any future change to sportscotland's remit, there would still be a responsibility for authorities to consult the equivalent organisation. We cannot provide the committee with any steer on what will happen to sportscotland in the future, because it is not really a planning policy or a planning responsibility.

We are concerned that the policy, as it is set out, requires sportscotland—or another body in its place—to undertake certain roles. Those concerns regarding the importance of sportscotland's role in relation to planning policy will be fed into the review.

Have planners taken into account only the possibility—as both of you have mentioned—that something else would replace sportscotland? My understanding is that the Government would like to abolish it entirely. Where would that role lie then? I realise that that is not directly a question for you, but I wonder how much consideration has been given to that possibility.

We cannot answer that. All that we can say is that it is essential that a planning authority has access to specialist advice, whether that is on sport or on other issues. The organisations that provide such advice might change, but the key point is that the function—the importance of getting access to expert advice when it is needed—should remain, and should not be diluted by any future arrangements.

It is something that we need to ask the minister, rather than the witnesses.

I would like clarification of the

"valued and functional open space"

that SPP 11 refers to.

I understand that the policy seeks to protect many bits of open space so that there is no major development on them. That is right and proper, but I am not sure whether the definition includes small pockets of grass and shrubs on the corners of estates—which are often smaller than the table in this committee room. They have only an aesthetic function—they are not the kind of place where kids have room to kick a football or take part in any other activities. Will you clarify whether very small pockets of grass or shrubs are included in the definition?

I and a number of other members recently took part in a debate about providing long-term maintenance—we are concerned about the maintenance of many open public areas, particularly by certain factoring companies. How will SPP 11 ensure that the long-term maintenance of open spaces, where factoring companies are involved, would be guaranteed?

I will answer the first point and perhaps Helen Wood can add something. The intention is that the audit will consider all open space in the local authority area and analyse the uses that are made of the key open space resources, how well they are used by the community and the different types of open space. Conclusions would be reached on which areas are considered valued and worthwhile to keep. The audit would identify where there is a deficit in particular kinds of open space and where there is a need for more investment. Planning advice note 65, which has been out for a few years, sets out how a planning authority should work through that process.

The bottom line is that the process should give the planning authority a clear steer on the areas that are valued and used by the community and where more investment is needed. The process will eventually lead to protection under the development plan.

Your second point was about maintenance, which is a key aspect of ensuring that open space is used and valued by the community. The policy sets out to highlight the importance of ensuring that open space is properly maintained. There are various ways in which the planning system has done that. Historically, the practice was for local authorities to take over and maintain spaces when developments were approved, but that is increasingly unlikely to be the case.

Whether there are planning agreements, maintenance arrangements put in place by residents, or arrangements for third parties or companies to look after the spaces, the key ingredient in the policy is that planning authorities should not overlook the need for proper maintenance. Options were highlighted in PAN 65, which contained some of the best practice at the time for maintaining open space.

The subject was given a great deal of thought during the preparation of the policy. The detail is dealt with further in the planning advice note. In the SPP, we re-emphasise the importance of ensuring that robust arrangements are in place at the point at which the planning system has greatest influence over any new open space. That means conditions or a planning agreement to ensure that proper arrangements are in place for the open space's long-term maintenance.

I have a couple of questions on paragraphs 40 and 41 of the planning policy document. Paragraph 41 says:

"Only where there is strong justification should open space protected by the development plan be developed either partly or fully for a purpose unrelated to use as open space. Justification must include evidence from the open space audit that the development will not result in a deficit of open space provision of that type within the locality".

Does that statement that a development will not result in a deficit imply that, before a development proposal is accepted, there must be a surplus of open space? My point is that if there is a level of open space that is only adequate, and a development goes ahead, that will produce a deficit. If a development is not to produce a deficit, there must be a surplus from which a developer may subtract. Is that correct?

It implies that people need to know what position they are in. They can know that in a meaningful way only if there has been an audit and a strategy, and if that has been an ingredient in the preparation of the development plan. Essentially, we aspire to a plan-led system. If we do not have that, we increasingly get ad hoc decisions that are not informed around the question that you highlight: what is the situation in the locality, and is there a surplus or deficit of open space? That is the key point.

Yes—that is exactly my point. The question is whether it is envisaged that local development plans will identify areas in which there is an alleged surplus of open space, to comply with the planning policy.

As I was going to say, the open space strategy should do that. The resources in an area are audited, the community is consulted on the use of the open spaces, and a strategy—a vision for the area—is developed. That strategy will highlight the areas in which there is a deficit in open space.

There might be surplus open space, which would mean that the solution would be to use new developments to provide more investment in the existing space, which might not be well maintained, rather than provide new space. However, you cannot take robust decisions unless you know what resource you have in the area. That is why the audit strategy development plan approach is crucial.

I understand that, but I am interested to know—since there are many such spaces in my constituency—whether the question whether an area is in surplus, in deficit or at the right level is subject to objective or subjective determination.

It should be a matter of objective determination. That determination should come through the strategy.

So, effectively, it is up to the planning authority to determine whether there is an existing surplus in any given area?

Yes.

Do you expect every development plan that emerges through this new local plan process to consider an area and say either that there is a surplus of local space in an area, with an implication that it can, therefore, be developed, or that there is a deficit and that, therefore, what is there needs to be protected?

That is not quite correct. The development plan should set out what is expected of developers in any particular area. Where, in one neighbourhood, there is a requirement for additional open space, we would like the development plan to make that clear. The reasoned justification behind that policy would sit in the strategy.

So when these local plans are being consulted on, people should be aware that the issue of surplus or deficit and what land is and is not valued is a key element in devising the overall plan?

I would say so, yes—but that should not be the first opportunity people have to become engaged in the issue. Our intention is that planning authorities should involve stakeholders, including local communities, when they are preparing their audits and strategies.

Paragraph 40 of SPP 11 envisages that larger open spaces will be identified in a local development plan and will be, in a sense, protected. However, it goes on to say:

"Where there is other open space which is not identified in the strategy but which is valued and functional or which contributes to local amenity … this should also be protected in the development plan."

How can a piece of land that is not identified be protected, other than by a general statement of the type that is in paragraph 40?

In that case, it would be a policy in the development plan. It may well be that strategies that are prepared locally consider slightly different levels of open space. That will be for the local authority to determine.

So it is up to the local authority to determine the levels of identification and the areas that will be covered. For instance, some authorities might want to identify areas down to the small areas of ground that Mr Tolson was talking about, but others might identify large parkland areas and leave other areas of ground to be covered by a general statement of the type that is in paragraph 40. Is that correct?

The intention is that the identification would be around spaces that have a real function and provide some value to the community. The process should flesh those out.

But functionality and value are subjective things. I might like a little park area because I walk my dog there, but there might be only four other dog walkers. One of the key issues is whether such matters are capable of objective rather than subjective determination. Who is to say what is or is not valued?

It is important to acknowledge that the SPP is the overriding national policy: it does not contain all the guidance on open space. It sets out what we expect authorities to do, but there are other documents. Planning advice note 65 is also key as it provides more detailed guidance on how to go about audits and what ingredients there are in quality open spaces. The SPP does not sit in isolation.

Helen Wood would like to comment.

You asked whether sites that have been identified as having a role through the strategy are the only ones that would be protected by the development plan. The policy's message is that unless there is evidence from the audit and strategy that certain open spaces are surplus to requirements, there is no question of releasing them for other uses. The message is not that, because they are surplus, they must be used for another form of land use.

Another check and balance is that, even if authorities have a surplus of a particular type of open space and feel that there is scope for releasing some of it, we are urging them to consider as the first possibility its use as another form of open space. There would not be an automatic assumption that because there are, for example, too many playing fields or more playing fields than necessary, the land is available for other uses that are not open space at all.

I understand that, but primarily the council judges whether there is a surplus or a deficit. It is not judged against an objective, external standard. It is ultimately, if you like, a political decision: "we think that there is a surplus" or, "we think that there is a deficit."

We require local authorities to take a strategic view of open space. As John McNairney said, we do not go down to the most detailed guidance in the SPP—supporting documents provide more detail. The requirement is that local authorities gather the information to make decisions about the future provision of open space in their areas.

Do you believe that the planning policy provides adequate protection for areas for informal play by children? The situation at a number of developments that have sprung up is that if no formal play area has been designated, once the houses are built there is strong resistance from local communities to the establishment of a play area because everyone wants a quiet life. Even people with children want them to play somewhere else—they do not want children being attracted to play in front of their house.

There is an issue about formal play, but I am more concerned about informal play, when kids run around and enjoy themselves without any structure. What level of protection does the policy provide for that?

The policy links in closely with PAN 65, which sets out a typology of open spaces. There is not one generic need for open space. In the audit and strategy process, the local authority has to assess current and future need for all the different types of open space within a community, including play space. Once the information has been prepared and the strategy has been established, that must feed into the development plan, which in turn provides protection for existing open space and sets out what needs are to be provided for in future developments.

That sounds great from a theoretical point of view, but in practice how likely is it that it will be implemented if folk go along to councils and say, "We are unhappy about all these kids playing in that patch of ground. What are you going to do about it?" As one of my colleagues said, we end up having "No ball games" signs. We live in a child unfriendly society. There are a lot of pressures on young people not to go out and enjoy themselves informally.

There is plenty of emphasis on people joining clubs and societies, but when I was young I did not want to do that—I wanted to go out and play with my pals. Now, children are more likely to get chased than they were when some of us were young. It is one thing to look at the issue in planning advice note 65, but how likely is it that local authorities will take the guidance seriously enough to act on it and protect the rights of children in this regard?

One key change is that the preparation of the development plan will become a statutory requirement. At the moment, most development plans are more than five years old, but there will be a legal requirement for planning authorities to keep their development plans up to date. If the national policy is that, in preparing development plans, authorities must go through an audit and strategy process, open space will not be regarded as an afterthought and will have to be mainstreamed. It will not be considered as an issue that only planning authorities need to think about. Councils as a whole need to contribute to strategies and development plans.

We are trying hard to promote design and to move it further up the agenda. It is likely that, where good master plans are provided for new communities or new residential developments, those will embed good open space provision—not just of the right quantity, but of the right quality, in the right location and linked to proper networks. When we have residential developments in which the quality of open space is of a much higher standard, there may be fewer complaints from people who become irritated partly because open space is not in the right location or is not properly supervised. I do not underestimate the role that good design can play. We want to promote a much more careful, planned approach to new development, including open space.

I am glad to hear that, because housing developments are springing up all over Scotland—there are some huge developments in Johann Lamont's constituency, for example. I do not think that developers give any consideration to open space—they are trying to get as many buildings as possible on to the smallest bit of land, to make as much money as possible. One can understand that from their perspective. I hope that planning policy will have more teeth and will enable open space to be protected, because there is a concern that in some parts of our cities, in particular, we may end up with a concrete jungle. It is bad enough that many of the houses that are being built do not take into account the possibility that family accommodation may be needed, but if there is nowhere for children to play, people will complain that the kids are getting up to all sorts of mischief.

SPP 11 states:

"Wherever possible local authorities and developers should aim to include imaginative planting which can contribute to biodiversity objectives and enhance the survival and awareness of plant species native to Scotland."

What will be the onus on local authorities to do that? Will they just pay lip service to the provision?

It is a requirement. We expect local authorities to adhere to the guidance in the SPP. They must do that not just in development plans but when they consider applications that come before them. It remains to be seen what will happen, but our intention is that the guidance should not be ignored—it needs to be acted on. It will be a material consideration in every planning application with which councils will deal.

How much room for manoeuvre will they have? Will the guidance be fundamental? Will it have equal weight with other considerations, or will it be almost an appendage to applications? If local authorities ignore the guidance, what will happen?

Local authorities should not ignore the guidance. It is a material consideration, and the expectation is that they will need to act on it. In the first instance, the planning system is for local authorities to operate. They need to take good-quality, robust decisions. We certainly look for better outcomes on the ground, but the Scottish Government cannot intervene in every planning application that comes before the system. We can provide guidance and support through advice notes, but ultimately it is for planning authorities to take the advice into account and to use it in deciding on applications.

I would not want anyone to think that my constituency is a concrete jungle, as Kenny Gibson described it—

I did not say that at all.

However, there are challenges with some private developments. One of the big lessons is that if open space is not provided when a development is created, it is difficult to jemmy it in afterwards. That is why I want to consider some of the issues around minimum standards.

I want to ask a couple of processy questions first. I am very much aware that you simply describe the policy and that it is not your job to explain it: that will be for a future evidence session with the minister, when we can talk about why some of the changes have been agreed. First, on the issue that my colleague Patricia Ferguson flagged up, was the planning directorate formally consulted—or is it in the process of being consulted—on the role of sportscotland? We are having an internal review of sportscotland and, according to the First Minister, we are also having a full consultation. Has the planning directorate been formally consulted on the future of sportscotland?

I cannot answer that, as I have not been involved. Unless Helen Wood can add to that, we cannot help.

We understand that there will be a wider consultation as part of the review. Neither I nor John McNairney is directly involved in the review, but we expect that planning will be given the opportunity to make an input.

I have been advised that the consultation is on-going and that we will have a decision before the turn of the year. However, that obviously is not a matter for you.

The sportscotland issue relates to the point that has been made about the need for a body of expertise. In the policy, a decision has been made not to go down the road of extending consultation to other bodies. That option was argued for on the basis that open space is about more than sporting space—for example, it might be space for recreational facilities—so we need to consult other bodies, but the Government did not take that view. We are now in a position where sportscotland might be abolished, but you have said that there needs to be a body of expertise. Given the argument that open space is about more than sport, is it not the case that we should retain the proposal to require consultation with other bodies that have expertise on recreation?

In part, the decision was a result of the consultation responses, which expressed mixed views on the proposal to extend consultation arrangements. It is also linked to the fact that, if we can deliver the audit process, strategy and development plan, there will be consultation on all the significant issues that apply to open space rather than just in response to individual planning applications. We hang quite a lot on that cycle of audit, strategy and development plan.

I do not know whether this is the general process that was followed, but the consultation report flags up the fact that the decision not to include minimum standards was made

"Following public responses, additional consultation with the stakeholder group and further consideration by Ministers".

Was that model of going out to public consultation, analysing the responses and then engaging in further consultation with the stakeholder group—perhaps you can tell me what form that consultation with the stakeholder group took—followed for all aspects of the policy?

No.

But that is the process that was followed for the issue of minimum standards.

Yes.

Was any documentation attached to that or was the stakeholder group just pulled together? Were organisations other than those in the stakeholder group given a second bite at the cherry? You made quite a significant shift as a consequence of that step.

We did. Helen Wood might want to add to this. There were internal changes in responsibility during the process. Essentially, we had a previous partnership commitment to introduce minimum standards. Our immediate response was to commission research on what those minimum standards should be. Some time later, the conclusions of that research were built into the consultation paper.

We had a mixed response on minimum standards. About a quarter of the people—mostly the developers—opposed the standards. About a quarter thought that they were a good thing and they did not make any additional comments. The remaining people, while supporting the principle of minimum standards, raised all sorts of issues that gave us cause for concern. For example, people thought that minimum standards were a good thing but said that they had to be flexible. That would be difficult in the case of a centrally imposed minimum standard. People said that minimum standards might be a good thing but that rural and urban areas would need different standards. Some authorities said that standards would be a good thing but that we would need two of them. It was made clear, certainly by developers, that if minimum standards were introduced, developments in certain intensively developed urban areas might not be viable. There were also concerns that the focus on quantity meant that we had ignored quality and accessibility.

We were trying to deliver on the partnership commitment, but responses to the consultation did not support that line. That happened before the election, of course. We redrafted the SPP, circulated it to the stakeholder group and asked whether its concerns were resolved by the redraft. They were not. In the final version, we had to make a decision on minimum standards. We were not comfortable with them because we recognised that there were too many practical difficulties.

You asked whether we followed the same approach with every other policy on which people commented. The answer is no. The commitment on minimum standards was a partnership commitment and we were trying to deliver on it.

So you did not follow that model with any other bits of policy.

No.

Your report states:

"Just over half of respondents gave the proposed standards qualified support".

As a consequence, however, the proposed minimum standards were thrown out. I think that Kenny Gibson flagged up the point that was to be addressed by minimum standards, namely that our approach should depend on the nature of the space, and that minimum standards are needed to ensure that open space is bedded in at the time of development, so that developers cannot just tick a box to say that there is a play area when there is no real space for that within the development.

Clearly, there is tension between the view of developers and possibly local authorities—people who want to build to meet housing demand—and the view of people who want communities to contain adequate open space. That political thread runs through the policy. The challenge is to get the right balance.

The responses to a proposal that had the qualified support of more than half of the respondents resulted in ministers deciding to remove the proposal. Is it not reasonable to say that ministers are not seeking to strike the right balance between the clear tensions that have to be managed in the policy?

There are tensions, but when we talk about qualified support we are talking about individuals and bodies who said, "Minimum standards sound like a good thing, but of course we couldn't use them", "Minimum standards are a good thing, but they have to be flexible", or, "We need different kinds of minimum standards." Essentially, what those people are talking about is not a minimum standard that we could impose centrally and expect to operate successfully throughout the country. Their concerns are fundamental.

It is not as if we have dismissed what the majority of people said. We have to try to put in place a policy that will have practical effect and that can be used locally. It was increasingly clear that minimum standards were simplistic and did not take account of quality, accessibility, adaptability or whether there was a surplus of open space in the vicinity. Where there is a surplus, which might not be well maintained, it is not necessarily right to require, through minimum standards, the provision of extra space. The right thing to do is to have planning authorities take responsibility for going through the process that we have described. That needs to be determined locally.

So, as your colleague has described, the situation is that developments are going up with inadequate open space inside them, and because you cannot lever something in later the challenges will remain. The policy will not address that problem at all—it cannot, because it is too difficult. It has been too difficult to establish how you would work a national minimum standard. No work has been done to establish whether there could be flexibility. The ultimate decision by ministers is that it is too difficult to address the problem and that that will therefore not be done through the policy.

The vast majority of authorities have their own local standards, and the fact that there is not a national minimum standard does not mean that open space will not be provided. There should be provision of open space that is appropriate to the area, not to the schedule that we have produced.

I read press reports about a shift in our policy resulting in there being no children's play provision, for example, but that is unfair, because that is not what we are promoting. We are saying that the issue is for planning authorities to deal with. Open space is important and should be provided, but it should be provided in a local context. I am not suggesting that it is all too difficult and that we will therefore not bother about it.

You hang a lot, quite rightly, on the need for audits and strategies. You said that you have considered the issue of an initial timeframe for when local authorities should start to audit. Have you said when they should finish? Is there an end point? You said that a number of local authorities have already embarked on preparing audits and strategies, and that they were able to do so within their existing resources. If a local authority comes to you and says that it does not have the resources to do an audit, will it be resourced? Critically, has there been identification not only of an opening point but of an end point by which authorities must have completed an audit?

No, there has not, and there is no penalty for not doing one—short of embarrassment, I suppose. The key consideration is that, when development plans come to ministers in the future, it is important that we scrutinise those development plans to ensure that they take account of national policy on open space and on everything else as well. The development plan is the end point. As I said earlier, the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 is introducing provisions to ensure that development plans are prepared to a legal timescale. There is a statutory duty to prepare development plans, and strategies should inform those development plans.

It has been put to me that SPP 11 is weaker than old national planning policy in relation to standards for open space. Do you agree with that?

That it is weaker than what?

Than the national planning policy that it is replacing on the issue of minimum size and minimum standards.

I would not say that; it is actually stronger. That is the issue about standards. We are asking for a standard that is about quality and for it to be determined locally.

I do not think that the new policy is weaker. NPPG 11 was reasonably tough on playing fields, but the new policy is tough on all open space, and there is a presumption, as we have discussed, against the development of any valued open space, not just playing fields. In that respect, it is tougher. It is certainly our aspiration that planning authorities will deliver better developments on the ground if they do what we are requiring them to do through the policy.

What support do you believe should be provided to local authorities when planning requirements, or even planning principles, appear to clash completely, where there is a clash of ideas? I am thinking of an example from my constituency, which obviously I will not ask you to go into, but it illustrates the point. A community has a school that, for structural reasons, has to be vacated imminently, and it has to find a new school. The requirement that new schools must have playing fields is welcome, but if a community urgently needs a new school but cannot find land that is exactly the right size for the playing field that is required for the school, an impasse or stand-off is reached, as has happened in my constituency. What support is provided to enable local authorities to solve that apparently insoluble problem?

Do you mean support in terms of policy?

In terms of policy or contact from the Government. How do you solve that problem?

The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 includes a provision that when a determination is made under the planning acts, it should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the scenario that you are talking about, our policy position would be that, if there were to be changes in the school estate, we would rather that be looked on as a corporate shift that was embodied in the development plan. That has not happened consistently in the past. If an urgent situation arose, such as you describe, that would be a material consideration and the planning authority would have to balance it against what its development plan said, assuming that the development plan did not give a steer on the issue. It is not that the development could not go ahead; it would go ahead contrary to the terms of the development plan and there might be a notification to ministers on the back of that.

I have a couple of questions on the open space that is protected. I wish to clarify whether my understanding of the position is correct.

SPP 11 talks about open spaces that are "valued and functional". Does that mean that the space has to be in use, as opposed to contributing to the amenity of adjacent land? I will give you an illustration. In my constituency, a lengthy river walkway is much used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, riders and others. It clearly provides a recreational function. Immediately adjacent to the walkway there are many fields, which contribute to the amenity and enjoyment of that recreational area, although the people who use the walkway do not, by and large, ride or walk across the fields. Is that open space protected by the policy or is the limited area of the walkway the only open space that is protected by the policy?

The space that you say contributes to the amenity of the area is probably agricultural land and will be shown as such in the development plan, therefore it will not be allocated as open space. I presume that it will not, therefore, be included in the open space audit, strategy or development plan. There will be other barriers to the development of that land, but it will not be protected as open space.

Suppose that, contrary to the situation that I have described, people wanted to exercise their new-found rights of responsible access over the fields—I am talking about the walkers, joggers, mountain bikers, riders and all the rest. Would the land become a "valued and functional" open space because people were exercising their rights, or would the fact that it is predominantly agricultural land preclude its definition as open space?

Local authorities have access responsibilities and must prepare a core paths plan. That is one way of looking at such opportunities. SPP 11 sets out that there must be synergy between the core paths plan and what the development plan says about access to areas such as you describe, ensuring that there are routes that people can use. The policy encourages authorities to consider establishing green networks and to seek opportunities to enable people not just to visit one area of open space but to walk, cycle or jog from one open space to another. One of the key planks of the policy is to encourage local authorities to think strategically and to consider how open space provides opportunities for people to be physically active.

Another element of open space is semi-natural open space, therefore not only the path would be protected as open space. I am talking not about agricultural land but about land that forms part of a route or walkway. The surrounding area has an open-space benefit in terms of biodiversity and the creation of a green route that people can use.

So land is either open space of the type that is protected or it is agricultural. Even if it has a mixed use as a result of people exercising their access rights, that does not make it open space for the purposes of the policy. The land remains covered by other designations and may be protected by other policies, but it is not protected under SPP 11. Is that correct?

Yes.

I am just trying to find something that I read in the documents, but I cannot remember exactly what it was. Has the size of sports pitches that require consultation with sportscotland changed with the switch from the existing policy to the new policy?

I think that it is still 0.4 hectares.

The threshold was lowered prior to the drafting of SPP 11, and there has been no change except in part of the definition. There has been no change in scale from what was in the consultation draft.

So it is about 0.2 hectares—is that correct?

Yes.

I thank the witnesses for their attendance this morning and for answering all our questions. I suspend the meeting until 12:45. Members must be back by then to ensure that things are hunky dory.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—