Transport and the Environment Committee, 27 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 27, 2002

Official Report 145KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Trunk Roads (Commercial Developments) (PE403)

Item 5 is a petition from Mr Allan McDougall on congestion on trunk roads in the Aberdeen area. A covering note has been circulated to members. The petition refers to a proposed development on the A90 trunk road in Aberdeen. The petitioner clarifies that, although planning permission has not been granted for the development, it has been granted for the access roads to the development.

The committee's options for dealing with the petition are set out in the covering note and I seek members' views on the action that the committee should take. I remind members that our previous approach has been not to comment on individual planning applications, because it would be unhelpful for the committee to become part of the appeal mechanism for planning applications. I ask members to bear that point in mind.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the petitioner. I will not comment on the specific development to which the petition refers, but I will comment on the effect of large out-of-town and near-town developments on our city centres and inner-city villages. My clear view is that such developments have gone far enough—in some cases, they have gone too far. We need to revise planning guidelines further to put the brakes on such developments. They have all sorts of unfair commercial advantages over city centres and inner-city villages, not least of which is free parking and the extra traffic that is generated as a result. We failed to address that issue in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and it should come back to the Transport and the Environment Committee in the near future, because our consideration of the overall effects of such developments on our cities could become an urgent matter.

The petition is somewhat misdirected when it says:

"The Scottish Executive Trunk Road Directorate has now accepted the possibility of a further Superstore development"—

on the A90. Ultimately, it is for Aberdeen City Council or Aberdeenshire Council to make decisions about superstore developments.

I agree with Robin Harper on two counts. First, we may need to look at congestion, perhaps as part of our post-legislative scrutiny of the impact of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which I suggested at a previous meeting that we should undertake. We should look at what has been happening in the two years since the Transport (Scotland) Bill was introduced.

Secondly, the committee needs to devote some of its time to planning. The committee has been responsible for the consideration of planning issues for the past three years, but we have not done much work on those issues since our consideration of mobile phone masts. We may need to focus on that work.

However, as far as PE403 is concerned, we should point out to the petitioner that we are already looking at transport issues in Aberdeen as part of our work on petition PE357. We should also point out that specific responsibility for the issues that are raised in the petition lies with the planning authority. We should leave matters at that. We should consider planning issues, but we should not do so in relation to petition PE403.

I understand that an appeal on the matter is with the Scottish Executive. We should advise the petitioner to direct his comments to the relevant minister. I suspect that he will have done so already, but when we write back to him, we should reinforce the fact that it would be appropriate for him to put his comments directly to the minister responsible for considering the planning proposal.

I agree with Des McNulty that, given that we are already considering transportation issues in the Aberdeen area in general in relation to PE357, we should focus on the related aspects of PE403. We should indicate to the petitioner that that is our intention. We should also point out to the petitioner that the Scottish Executive is carrying out a consultation on participation in the planning process and that some of the points that the petitioner makes would best be addressed to that consultation process.

Yes, it is obvious that PE403 has a strong link to PE357 from Aberdeen City Council. I think that the strategic plan is to be published in March and that we planned to take evidence from the council then.

No, we decided to take evidence from the minister at that stage.

That is right. We took evidence from Aberdeen City Council when we held our meeting in Aberdeen. We are well aware of the issues behind the petition and I hope that we can resolve them at a later date. We should draw attention to the fact that we will take evidence from the minister once the strategic plan is published. That might help the petitioner in his anxiety to see congestion relieved. I am sure that the issue is one of congestion, rather than supermarkets.

From what members have said, it appears that they have not received the e-mail that the petitioner sent, clarifying some of the reasons behind the petition. The petitioner is aware that the committee cannot consider an individual planning application, but they are setting that to one side—it is cited as an example of what is wrong with the planning system. The petitioner is concerned that a decision seems to have been made that is contrary to national planning policy guideline 17, which specifically states that large commercial developments should not be accessed directly by a trunk road, but should be accessed via secondary roads. There is a concern that two public bodies are taking contradictory approaches to planning guidelines.

The petition asks for the opportunity to hold a public inquiry or meeting in respect of such large developments. The petitioner is aware of the on-going consultation and they are contributing to that. As Des McNulty said, the committee has not done much on planning and perhaps we should be considering how we can participate in or take cognisance of current consultation on the planning system.

I would sound a note of caution against putting additional work into our work programme because our time is heavily committed for much of the remainder of the year.

Yes, that is a difficulty.

We should be cautious about committing ourselves to another substantial piece of work, given that we have recently agreed the work programme. There may be some flexibility, but I do not want us to commit to anything substantial just now.

I received a copy of the e-mail from the petitioner and I presume that other members received a copy, too.

Good. The e-mail clarified the thrust of the petition.

I support your suggestion, convener, that we go for both option A and B. I agree with Maureen Macmillan that the issue is congestion and for that reason I have a deal of sympathy with the petitioner. However, rather than suggest that the petitioner gets in touch with the minister, we should forward the petition to the minister as part of the committee's work, so that the minister can take it fully into account in the appeal process that is under way.

I think that we should approach the matter with a combination of options A and B. That means that we will inform the petitioner that, although we cannot take a view on the individual planning decision cited in the petition, we will examine the congestion issues that it raises as part of our on-going consideration of petition PE357. Moreover, we will recommend that the petitioner participate in the public consultation on the review of the planning process and that he ensure that views about the applications are drawn to the attention of the ministers who are considering them. I suppose—

I believe that we should draw the petition to the attention of the minister who is considering the appeal.

If we did so, we would come close to getting involved in individual planning issues.

Not if we simply refer the petition to the minister for his own information.

I suspect that the committee would then be deluged with similar petitions from across Scotland asking us to draw individual issues to the minister's attention. It would be simple enough for people concerned about planning applications that are in the hands of ministers to correspond with those ministers directly. We should not become a postbox for such correspondence.

I agree. We should not get involved with this individual planning application. However, it would be proper to draw the general planning issues that the petitioner raises to the attention of the minister with responsibility for planning.

I have some sympathy with the proposal that we draw the petitioner's concerns about the application of NPPG 17 to the minister's attention.

That is a perfectly proper way of dealing with such general issues.

It would be more appropriate than expressing any opinions about the individual planning application.

I should clarify that I was not suggesting that we should express an opinion, merely that we should pass the papers on to the minister.

I still think that Nora Radcliffe's proposal is more appropriate. We will raise with the minister only the petitioner's concerns about the application of NPPG 17.

Will we not then be offering a recommendation to the minister?

No.

I think that that could be construed as such.

Any correspondence with the minister would raise concerns that have been expressed to the committee about the issue and would ask the minister to take them into account.

I rest my case.

No, John. There is a difference between your proposal and Nora Radcliffe's proposal. Your proposal would set a precedent for the committee to send to the minister any petition that we received on a planning issue. On the other hand, Nora has proposed that we draw the minister's attention to a specific issue about the application of the NPPG. There is a distinct difference.

Oh, there is.

I propose that we take the approach that I have outlined. We will make it clear to the petitioner that we do not take a view on individual planning decisions. However, we will examine some of the congestion issues that he raises in our consideration of petition PE357. We will also reiterate that the Executive is undertaking a review of planning and, as Nora Radcliffe suggested, draw the concerns expressed about the application of NPPG 17 to the minister's attention. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content to conclude our consideration of the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members of the press and public for their interest in today's meeting. We will now move into private for consideration of two agenda items.

Meeting continued in private until 11:12.