Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Official Report 365KB pdf

---

National Planning Framework 2

The next item on the agenda is oral evidence on the Scottish Government’s national planning framework 2 progress report. I welcome Stewart Stevenson MSP, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change; Graeme Purves, assistant chief planner; Emma Hay, principal planner; and Rebecca Frost, student planner. I invite the minister to make some brief introductory remarks.

Twelve months into a 20-year strategy, significant progress is already being made on implementation of the national developments and other aspects of the spatial strategy that is set out in NPF 2. That demonstrates both a commitment to increasing sustainable economic growth across Scotland and the relevance of the NPF strategy.

The Government is not directly involved in the implementation of many of the projects and actions that are identified in the action programme. Local authorities and other public sector organisations are the lead partners for most actions. Many of the national developments are being taken forward by the private and third sectors. The creation of the action programme has enabled a practical focus to be applied to the strategy, helped to provide clarity on milestones and delivery responsibilities, and provided a useful method of monitoring progress. The action programme is a live document and will, therefore, be adjusted and refined to ensure its continuing relevance and usefulness.

I expect that the committee is already aware that a petition challenging the designation of Hunterston as a national development has been presented to the Court of Session. We understand that the petitioner has funding to proceed with that action. As the issue is before the court, I cannot comment directly on the process that led to the designation.

Thank you for your opening remarks.

I thank the minister for his comments. My question concerns one of the national developments and how it fits into the overall national planning framework. I have a particular interest in the proposed high-speed rail link to London. I am mindful of the minister’s initial comment that much of the national planning framework is about sustainable economic development. A high-speed rail link would fit into the framework exceptionally well, as it would reduce the number of internal United Kingdom flights, boost the Scottish tourism industry and boost Scottish business. It seems to tick all of the boxes for sustainable economic development. What point have we reached with the development of high-speed rail from Scotland to London, as part of the national planning framework?

I will remind members of the background to the proposal. Each year, about 7 million journeys are made from central Scotland to the south-east of England. At present, approximately 1 million of those are made by rail. There is clear potential for modal shift, if the rail system is improved.

We had a good relationship with the previous Secretary of State for Transport, Andrew Adonis, on the subject of High Speed Two and rail generally. It was recognised that the case for high-speed rail—the HS2 link—would be substantially enhanced if the railway came all the way to Scotland. That recognition was valuable, but it was not reflected in the urgency with which plans were developed.

I have spoken to the new Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, on two occasions, but I have not yet had the opportunity to speak to him about HS2. However, I understand that, broadly, the position has not changed much. Clearly, a high-speed rail link would contribute to our economy and to the climate change agenda, but would require substantial planning effort. I understand that the planning in the public domain for the line from London to Birmingham, which is just a small part of the whole line—[Interruption.] Excuse me, convener. If you can find a cure for this cough, please tell me.

I understand that it has cost in the order of £0.5 billion simply to do the planning. However, we hope to see further progress in the near future on this important subject.

You mentioned £0.5 billion. Obviously, we have to see how the current UK Government progresses high-speed rail, but would the £0.5 billion be invested on a UK national interest basis? In other words, would there be a Barnett consequential from it? I ask that because, if high-speed rail is a vital piece of UK infrastructure, we can talk about how we finance the entire line, which moves the debate on. Have you any information about what pot of cash that investment will come from and whether it will attract a Barnett consequential?

That is a perfectly proper question, but there is no clear answer to it yet. One must look at the effect of the whole project and see where the benefits are derived. Clearly, given the hundreds of flights to Scotland from Heathrow in particular, a benefit would accrue to west London if that number of flights were reduced. It is a complex matter to tease out where the advantages lie and where the responsibility for paying for the creation of the infrastructure should lie.

As the committee may be aware, the present Government has announced that it is looking to privatise HS1, which is the line from London to the Channel tunnel, and it clearly sees a role for the private sector in developing lines of that character. We do not fundamentally take a different view, but it is absolutely important that we move with a sense of urgency and ensure that a high-speed rail link would serve the public interest and address areas of public policy that matter, such as climate change. I do not yet see any difference of view between the coalition Government at Westminster and ourselves on the matters to which I have just referred.

It is vital that we get clarity about the spend, because not a lot of public money is being put up for capital projects, as we saw from yesterday’s budget. However, if there is public money for the development of high-speed rail infrastructure and there is a Barnett consequential, it leaves open the question of how the Scottish Government might use said consequential. If high-speed rail is a UK national development—to use that language—then of course whether that infrastructure project should start from London or from Scotland is open to debate. There may be issues with the interconnectivity between London and the midlands. The key issue from a UK perspective is how we benefit the connectivity between Scotland and London as opposed to, say, between Birmingham and London. If public moneys are attached to that, I hope that, even at this stage, you will put that argument quite strongly to the UK Government so that it reviews its priorities on where it starts the connectivity for high-speed rail.

The member very much illustrates the nature of the argument. Certainly, we will robustly put the case for early progress in bringing the line to Scotland.

It is worth making a point that may be slightly unexpected if you have not looked at the issue in depth. There is a commitment that the trains that will travel at high speed on the first part of the planned HS2 route to Birmingham will continue to Scotland, which means that we will gain the benefit of reduced en route times between London and Birmingham. However, the current trains on the west coast are able to travel at their current speeds because they are tilting trains, which, because of the presence of the tilting mechanism, are heavier than non-tilting trains, so there is a weight penalty. With high-speed trains, that weight penalty is unacceptable, therefore the high-speed trains will not be tilting trains. A high-speed train from London will go faster to Birmingham but will actually travel more slowly than the existing trains on the northern part of the line, so while we expect that there will be a timing benefit to Scotland, it will be comparatively modest.

That is why it is so urgent to extend the line further to ensure that we get the timing benefits. We are quite clear that a reduction in journey times causes people to make the modal shift. Even today, the railway is increasingly a much more comfortable and business-friendly way to travel. I encourage people to use today’s railway, but HS2 will clearly make things substantially better.

I have a final, more general question, which I appreciate that the committee has asked before. Unless there is cash to match the planning aspirations, the national planning framework is simply an aspirational framework. As far as the NPF is concerned, how do you prioritise Government capital investment?

There are a few things to say. First, the national planning framework is a 20-year view from a planning perspective. Secondly, it is a strategic spatial planning document and is not in and of itself a document about finance. Thirdly, a substantial proportion of the projects are projects that would not necessarily receive any Government funding.

The framework is about planning, not finance. However, as we move forward through successive spending reviews, we will of course use the national planning framework and the strategic transport projects review to identify the projects that we will prioritise and provide funding for in each successive review. The key point is that we devote resources at local government level and national Government level to support the planning process for projects that are in the national planning framework.

I notice that there is no mention in the briefing paper of the national renewables infrastructure plan. Is that intentional?

Excuse me while I consult the officials to ensure that I give an appropriate answer.

The plan is post-NPF, so we will take account of it in successive iterations of our plans.

Good morning, minister. You said that many of the projects within NPF 2 will be carried out in partnership, including with local authorities. What discussions, if any, have been taking place with local authorities about their role in drafting strategic plans and local development plans?

It is clear that we have a role in some of the plans that local authorities have to bring forward. We meet local authorities regularly to discuss planning matters. The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 received broad, cross-party support in the Parliament when it was passed.

We have a biannual ministerial meeting, whereby Mr Swinney, Mr Mather and I meet local planning officials and politicians to ensure that we are making progress on the renewal and revision of the planning system. In addition, we meet stakeholders—Mr Swinney and I met a range of stakeholders and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities officials earlier this month; I cannot quite pin down the date.

There is a strong partnership, which is beginning to show fruit in a number of council areas. In other areas, progress still needs to be made. The chief planner, Jim Mackinnon, has been given the responsibility of being the fixer when difficulties emerge. He engages consistently and effectively with local authorities that are finding the planning reform journey more challenging.

10:15

That is where my question lies. Are there challenges that we should be aware of with regard to the national and local perspectives?

Yes, there are challenges in planning. That will come as no surprise to anyone who has had any contact with planning, which is a category that everyone in the room fits into.

An important consideration will be the extent to which individual local authorities’ successes and challenges should be more visible to their electors. Later this year, we will consider whether it is appropriate to introduce a system of inspections of planning authorities and will consult on whether to do so. We have not yet come to a conclusion on the proposal, but we certainly have the power to introduce it. I think that a number of authorities would welcome that, because it would give them an opportunity to demonstrate the progress that they have made and the quality of delivery that their planning departments provide. For some councils, such an inspection system might be much more challenging. There is further debate to be had on the issue.

I have a brief question that you would expect me to ask, relating to the Grangemouth freight hub. Our briefing paper refers to the A801, for the development of which Falkirk Council and West Lothian Council have acquired land and put in place a plan. That is critical to the developments at the Grangemouth freight hub. Will you say a bit more about where we are on that?

There are a number of aspects to the Grangemouth freight hub. For example, electrification of the railway line has been included for consideration as part of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvements programme. I do not want to give the impression that a final decision has been made, but it makes sense to do that as part of the wider project at a comparatively modest marginal cost. However, we have yet to come to a final conclusion.

We recognise that Falkirk Council and West Lothian Council have essentially done the necessary preparatory work on the A801. As we look at the capital resources that will be available for projects in the next spending review, it will be for us in Government and for the local authorities to decide whether that project and others are among those that we support. Although we might have a debate about why we are where we are and how we should respond, I think that we all recognise that for the next few years resources will be more restricted than they have been for some time—but that is not to indicate a decision either way.

That does not sound very hopeful.

We live in difficult times.

The national planning framework is meant to ease the conventional planning process. It strikes me that planning difficulties to do with the high-speed rail link will be greater as the line approaches the conurbations in Scotland than they will be at the border, although there might be local difficulties.

Can you say whether or when a decision is likely to be made on the extent of the lines? It seems sensible that trains should terminate in our major cities, be that on conventional rail or not, to allow connectivity. However, the closer the high-speed link comes to conurbations, the more planning difficulties there will be. What timescale is there for establishing the most likely route?

Preliminary work is already in course for both Glasgow and Edinburgh. The fundamental issue, which will determine a great deal of the other decisions that are made, is where the terminus will be.

There is limited opportunity to bring the line in at Edinburgh Waverley station at the existing level. The high-speed trains are likely to be too long for the current platform capacity at Waverley—even platforms 1 and 20 together are unlikely to be long enough for a train that is 400m long. That is an issue. There could be engineering options to go beneath the existing station, but a substantial cost would be associated with doing that. We are considering whether there could be a terminus to the west of Haymarket. I am not suggesting that any decision has been made—we are very far from that—but we are engaged in and considering the matter.

There are more opportunities in Glasgow, but given that we are running out of capacity at the two main rail termini—Glasgow Queen Street and Glasgow Central stations—we are discussing with Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde partnership for transport and others whether it is appropriate to consider a new terminus. There are serious constraints on the existing approach to Glasgow Central, but we have established—in a very preliminary way; it has simply been confirmed that this could be done—that a long-enough platform could be created, albeit that it would have to extend over the Clyde, which operationally might not be a satisfactory solution.

The situation in Glasgow is not quite as complex as it is in Edinburgh, but there is perhaps an opportunity to consider a consolidated and entirely new railway terminus. We are years away from coming to a conclusion on the subject, but we are engaged on it.

Given that we are talking planning, it is worth making the point that the Transport and Works (Scotland) Act 2007 is likely to enable us to speed things up to some extent. Andrew Adonis, the previous Secretary of State for Transport, indicated to me that he expected that it would take between three and a half and three and three quarter years to take the necessary legislation through the Westminster Parliament, in part because the institution is bicameral and there would need to be committees in the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Our planning regime in Scotland is such that it would be likely to take less time to deal with the planning issues than it would take south of the border, although the process would not be quick.

It strikes me that if the logistics are forcing you to have separate termini, there are potential disadvantages for anyone who wants to travel to somewhere other than Edinburgh or Glasgow. Either people will have to change to another train to get from the new terminus to the existing terminus at Waverley, Central or wherever, or we will have to stop all the trains that leave Waverley, Central or wherever at the new terminus, thereby increasing journey times and making the journey slower and less attractive. There are a few difficulties to iron out.

If I have appeared to suggest that we are considering separate termini, I should say that that is not at all where we would like to be. We want to have shared termini, if we can.

We would also like—and we retain within our thinking the option of—the high-speed trains to Glasgow and Edinburgh to continue as trains to destinations beyond, such as Dundee, Aberdeen and, potentially, Inverness. The issues that will determine whether that is technically feasible are issues of gauge. The prospect of high-speed trains running north of the central belt is a more distant one.

Even with the existing infrastructure, there are now some semi-serious discussions about trains running from Munich to Manchester—a company has expressed interest in that. When rail systems are joined up in the right way, we can use the different capabilities of different parts of the network to support attractive long-distance travel. Indeed, a long-term objective remains for people to be able to travel from Scotland to destinations beyond la Manche.

Good morning, minister. If we are talking about getting from Manchester to Munich, I will resist the temptation to suggest that being able to get from Glasgow to its airports would have been a good idea. Let us not go there this morning.

What influence has NPF 2 had on the list of developments that has been provided to us today? Have they progressed on their own behalf or has their being in NPF 2 encouraged movement along the way?

NPF 2 has two key aspects. First, it establishes need, and creates a parliamentary process, in which we have all engaged, to do so. Thereby it reassures the promoters of particular projects that those projects have been recognised as being of national importance. It does not remove the need to consider environmental assessments of the effects on local communities during the planning process; however, because it establishes need, it gives a leg up to projects. In considering the projects that are included in the NPF, we look at those that deliver the maximum benefit to our economy and our communities.

Secondly, the plans that local authorities produce must be consistent with both the projects and the narrative in the national planning framework. For example, the narrative in NPF 2, reflecting some of the discussion that we have had, contains an aspiration to electrify rail by 2030. That is not a project within NPF 2; it is part of the narrative that signals a long-term intention that is considered to be of national importance. [Interruption.]

I sympathise with the minister, who is showing signs of discomfort this morning.

It is only an irritation. Apparently, I am not at death’s door. As my wife says, I am still eating.

I am sure that that is reassuring to us all.

Especially to me.

Does the action programme have any role in driving forward the projects that are identified? Does it merely record and give an opportunity for some kind of monitoring along the way or does it do a bit more than that?

As the member says, the action programme records what is happening, which is important for Parliament and wider Scotland, and provides a means of describing any impediments that may arise. As the planning system moves towards greater consideration of the detail of developments, planning authorities and promoters inevitably encounter things that may not have been apparent at the outset. So from that point of view, the action programme is useful. Does it drive things forward? Well, its very existence and keeping it in the public eye means—I suspect—that that is a second-level effect. I describe it thus because that is not its purpose but a benefit of its existence.

10:30

As I remember, NPF 2 does not identify timeframes as such, so I wonder whether there is any scope in the framework to record major issues or problems—or even major achievements—along the way, so that people can see whether there has been progress or otherwise. I realise that that is difficult when you are not measuring against something that is in the original, but it might just be useful.

I am happy to recognise the validity of those comments, which we will certainly think about. It might be useful just to point out that the economic environment changes even in one year. For example, the Scapa Flow container terminal is one of the projects on the list, but there is no early prospect of it proceeding, because world trade has diminished. However, we are seeing early signs that things are coming back. For example, a number of the merchant ships that have been moored in Loch Striven are moving away because demand for capacity is beginning to return. A commercial development such as the one at Scapa Flow will depend on world trade returning to the levels that were envisaged when it was mooted that it be a national development. It is perfectly proper for the action programme to reflect that things are changing there and elsewhere. For example, Babcock at Rosyth is bringing forward proposals on marine freight as well. There is a dynamic, living situation and the action programme will be similarly dynamic and living and will reflect the changes that we see. I guess that it will help to promote developments and ensure that things are going on, not least because people will see what is and is not going on and will ask questions, which will probably be helpful.

Good morning, minister. The action programme identifies progress to date after year 1. In relation to subsequent reports on the progress of NPF 2, would it be possible to differentiate clearly progress year by year and not simply subsume elements into previous statements, so that we or subsequent committees can get an idea of the scale of progress year on year? Obviously, some projects may go at a faster pace than others, and unless you achieve a clear differentiation and identification of that kind of progress, it can be quite confusing and difficult to assess.

We will certainly seek to ensure that subsequent reports provide the kind of clarity that will allow members to see what has happened since the previous report. However, let me just draw us back to what is actually going on here. The national planning framework is a spatial planning document, and our report on it primarily focuses on what is happening in relation to the planning process. We will not necessarily know what may or may not be being said in boardrooms about the private sector projects. Given the nature of the projects, it is likely that a certain amount of information will be available and can be included in what we say, but I would be cautious about imagining that we can give a picture of everything that is going on. We can report on the spatial planning and the detailed planning aspects of projects, but we may not be able to give a complete picture. I realise that that is rather obvious, but it is probably important that I say it.

That is fair enough in relation to material that may be commercially confidential; I accept that. However, in fairness, the current report on year 1 gives a wide range of information, which is not confined to the planning aspects of the developments. I would like to think that as much information as the Government and other public bodies that are participants in these projects can make available would be in subsequent reports.

In response to previous questions, you fairly and correctly pointed out that many of these projects will in effect be privately funded and will not necessarily be a call on the public purse, but some of them are likely to be a call on the public purse—the biggest of which, I suspect, is the new Forth crossing. Does the Government have any idea of the likely contribution from the public purse to the developments that are in the plan? Do you and Mr Swinney keep a little tally of how much you will have to chip in to progress the projects that you have deemed to be of national significance?

Bearing in mind that NPF 2 gives a 20-year view and is about the planning aspects, it is not the place for such information, but many of the projects are described elsewhere. For example, surface transport is covered by the strategic transport projects review. It, similarly, gives a 20-year view, and has price bands that give a sense of the size of the project and, in general terms, the answer on the public contribution. Some of the bands are quite wide, from top to bottom; the biggest one is probably three to one. Is there a single document that does that for national planning framework projects? To be candid, I do not think that there is, not least because we have not yet got to the point of providing funding for all the projects, because they will happen over a 20-year period. However, given that we are now publishing all expenditure over £25,000, I do not think that there will be anywhere to hide the expenditure involved.

Let me pick up a wee point from the remarks that the member made at the start of his questions. The action programme is an online document and there is additional information in it that is quite regularly updated, which you will not necessarily wait a year to see. For individual projects, as we become aware of things—whether at our own hand or from others—we seek to provide relevant information on a rolling basis. If you look at the document from one month to another, there may be a range of changes. It is always difficult to decide whether to tell people that the document is being updated, because in some cases it might be updated three times a week, or simply to publish it in a formal sense once a year as we are doing.

I am interested in what you have said about the programme being almost passive, in that you have set the framework for planning. Nevertheless, there was quite a bit of consultation—although perhaps not as much as we would have liked to have seen—so the projects have a great deal of buy-in across Scotland. Would you be concerned if, a few years down the line, projects were not being delivered across a fair geographical spread?

This is a programme for the whole of Scotland. In producing the national planning framework, we sought to consider it geographically to ensure that my officials, who all live in Edinburgh or its environs, were not missing a trick in relation to projects in other parts of Scotland. From harbour developments in the south-west to Scapa Flow in the Orkneys, we have achieved a substantial geographical spread. Through the action programme that we are publishing, we are showing our engagement in the projects and the progress that is being made. You can be assured that we will continue to look at the whole of Scotland. Through the process that we are adopting, it will be possible for others to see whether or not we are so doing.

As Graeme Purves has just reminded me, Orkney Islands Council is considering a parallel activity for Scapa Flow with regard to the opportunities for supporting offshore renewables there. That work is not the same as the work on the container port, which is in the national planning framework, but we should not imagine that there are not other things happening—of which that is one example of which we are aware.

We have heard a lot this morning about how councils have regard to the national planning framework. What is the role of other public sector organisations? Does the investment programme of Scottish Enterprise, in particular, fit well with what is contained in the framework?

I highlight the developments in the national planning framework for Edinburgh airport. Through the west Edinburgh partnership, Scottish Enterprise is a key player in the project. The enterprise agencies and public bodies in general—including non-departmental public bodies—are very much engaged where appropriate.

There are no other questions from committee members. I thank the witnesses for their attendance. That concludes this agenda item, although I ask the minister to remain where he is while the other witnesses change over.

I will perhaps just go off and have a small cough, shall I?

10:42 Meeting suspended.

10:43 On resuming—