Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Official Report 471KB pdf

---

Current Petition

---

Wild Land (Protection) (PE1383)

The next item of business is evidence on PE1383, by Helen McDade on behalf of the John Muir Trust, on better protection for wild land. As previously agreed, the committee will take evidence from Scottish Government ministers. I welcome Paul Wheelhouse, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change; Derek Mackay, the Minister for Local Government and Planning; Keith Connal, who is deputy director, natural resources division, in the Scottish Government; and John McNairney, who is the chief planner for the Scottish Government.

Thank you all for coming. I invite Mr Wheelhouse to make a short opening statement of up to five minutes.

Thank you, convener. I am pleased to give evidence to your committee as part of its consideration of the John Muir Trust petition on wild land. My colleague Derek Mackay is here, too, because the Scottish Government’s proposals for protecting wild land are part and parcel of planning policy, which falls within his portfolio.

I will start with my understanding of the term “wild land”. I am aware that there is no single definition and that people may have different views, although many think of wild land as remote mountain and moorland. Even when the layperson perceives land to be wild, it may in fact be the output from a managed landscape rather than natural wildness. I appreciate, too, that the quality of wildness can reflect personal expectations and can be experienced in a range of settings—even close to settlements.

However, for the purpose of today’s discussion I am guided by Scottish Natural Heritage’s consideration of wildness. SNH advises that four physical attributes of land can be measured and mapped: naturalness of land cover; ruggedness of terrain; remoteness; and the visible lack of modern artefacts. Taken together, those attributes constitute what many would recognise as wildness; indeed, SNH used them to produce a map of relative wildness across Scotland in 2012.

As the committee is aware, SNH continued its mapping work to advise and inform ministers in their deliberations on planning policy. The “Scottish Third National Planning Framework—Main Issues Report and Draft Framework”, together with a revised “Scottish Planning Policy”, were published for consultation at the end of April. SNH’s map of core wild land areas was also published.

The revised planning policy recognises the need to safeguard areas of wild land character from intrusive human development and, for the first time, there is an explicit reference to a wild land map in the planning documents associated with the consultation. The context in which the map is presented is important. First, NPF3 proposes a spatial strategy to help make Scotland a low-carbon place by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050. To do that, we have set out the need to support onshore wind energy development in appropriate locations and, in doing so, to strike a balance between supporting development and protecting landscapes, including wild land.

The revised planning policy states that the Scottish Government does not wish to see wind farms in national parks and national scenic areas—our very best landscapes—and that we want to continue strong protection of our wildest land as identified on SNH’s core wild land map. That means that wind farm development would be appropriate in core wild land areas only where significant effects can be mitigated and overcome.

The explicit link between planning policy, specifically regarding renewables, and SNH’s core wild land map will provide clarity that has not previously been available. NPF3 makes it clear that ministers do not intend to legislate for a new environmental designation and that core wild land areas would not be designated under statute.

The map of wild land identifies some 20 per cent of the area of Scotland as core wild land, which is a significant increase on the position in 2002 when SNH identified, in a fairly broad-brush way, some 13 per cent of the area of Scotland as search areas for wild land. The reason for that is clear: SNH’s measuring and mapping of the four wild attributes, plus use of new geographic information system technology, allows for more precision.

Consultees are asked whether they agree with our proposal that we use the SNH mapping work to identify more clearly those areas of wild land that need to be protected. Early reactions include a comment from Cameron McNeish, who is a long-time critic of wind farms. He said:

“As far as I am aware no European Government has put an outright ban on wind turbines on particular areas of their country that are seen as nationally important in terms of landscape quality. The much-criticised Scottish Government could well be the first to do so.”

The John Muir Trust commented:

“We are pleased that the Scottish Government now recognises the importance of wild land as an important part of our cultural heritage and international profile.”

I encourage all those who have an interest in wild land to respond to the consultation by Tuesday 23 July. Mr Mackay and I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

Thank you, Mr Wheelhouse. Obviously I encourage Mr Mackay to intervene at any time if he wishes to clarify a point. I am sure that some of our questions will be directed to him as well.

I wish to clarify a couple of points for the record. Some of the points that you raised in your statement might have covered them, but I want to be totally clear. Is the John Muir Trust right to argue that core areas of wild land are not being allocated the same status as national parks?

That is correct. I understand that the Government is, in effect, saying to the industry that we do not want onshore wind farms to be developed in national parks and national scenic areas. Wild land has additional protection over and above existing planning policy. Wind farms could be built, but only if substantial mitigation were to be put in place to overcome their effects.

To be clear, the group 1 designation as it relates to wind farms is a complete ban and wind farms are not acceptable in the national parks and national scenic areas. Group 2 designation provides significant protection and, as Mr Wheelhouse said, mitigation would have to be deployed if a wind farm were to proceed in such an area. That protection has been strengthened from where it was previously, and that is what we are consulting on.

Clearly, some core wild land is not in national parks or national scenic areas. What proportion of wild land does not fall into either of those designations?

I could hazard a guess. I am sure that I read in a briefing note that 40 per cent—

It is 42.3 per cent.

I was close. Approximately 42.3 per cent of core wild land is in such designated areas, so the remainder is not in either. That is almost 60 per cent.

Thank you. I think that you covered this in your opening statement, Mr Wheelhouse, but will you reiterate that the Scottish Government will not legislate for new environmental designations?

At this stage we have no proposals for an environmental designation of wild land.

So, where is the beef with the proposals? For example, on 21 May, Highland Council, which is in my patch, raised no objection to two large wind farm developments on wild land, despite objections from SNH on wild land issues. If there is no wild land designation, where are the teeth? What is preventing speculative applications being made for large-scale developments on wild land? Why not have a designation and stop the burdens of protracted legal wrangles and costly local public inquiries?

We propose much greater clarity in the system. I would not want to prejudice any live or future application. The proposals that we have outlined in the national planning policy and the national planning framework will give greater clarity. We are talking not only about land designation, but about cumulative impact, separation distances and the other factors that come into play in the consideration of any planning decision. Every planning decision is taken on a case-by-case analysis and its merits are considered, so a range of issues would be taken into account and ultimately it would be for the determining authority to give weight to each consideration.

As proposed, our policies will make the position much clearer by creating the four categories and being specific about what we mean. That is why we are consulting on them. Where local authorities have a particular view, that is important, but so are the designations. It is clear what considerations will be taken into account in each case.

Mr Waterhouse?

I was Mr Whitehouse last week according to Keith Brown, but I have another new name this week. [Laughter.] Sorry—I could not resist that.

You will get much harder questions after that reply.

It is important to recognise that designation does not confer an absolute bar on any or all development. Even if a designation were in place, an appropriately sited development could take place. Development can take place in national parks and can be considered even in Natura 2000 sites, subject to appropriate mitigation. Some people are suggesting that if wild land were designated that would put a complete stop on any development, but it is worth stating that, even where there are environmental designations, development can still take place subject to appropriate mitigation.

Does the Scottish Government have a policy of re-wilding land, as in wild Ennerdale in the lake district?

The Scottish Government is increasingly looking at landscape-scale ecosystems projects and habitats as a whole. We will soon launch our refreshed biodiversity strategy, which looks at opportunities to restore habitats that will support species that are or could be under threat as a result of climate change. That is leading us to look at larger, landscape-scale projects and to take an ecosystems approach to protecting our natural heritage.

Wild land areas have significant conservation benefits in the sense that, because there are no competing demands in terms of development pressures, they form refuges for different species. We are trying to take an ecosystems approach in areas where there is development, as well as in areas where there is no development.

It would be wrong to presume that the choice is between the environment and economic growth, because both can work in harmony. The Government’s overarching objective is sustainable economic growth. One example of that from the national planning framework is the central Scotland green network, whereby we are integrating economic opportunity with the protection and enhancement of the environment. In addition, we have the strategies that my colleague Paul Wheelhouse has outlined, such as reforestation and the other programmes that are interplaying with ecosystems.

The planning system is about having the right development in the right places, and that includes protecting the environment. I believe that the balance that we propose to strike between greater protection for valued parts of the environment and growth, where appropriate, is the right one.

Good morning, ministers, Mr Connal and Mr McNairney. Minister, there is no such thing as wild land, is there?

As I said in my opening statement, there are issues of subjectivity in defining what wild land is. As ministers, we have had to fall back on a more scientific, evidence-based approach to developing our understanding of those areas that are most in line with what people perceive to be wild land. That is based on SNH’s four characteristics, to which I referred earlier. You are absolutely right, however, that there will always be an element of subjectivity in defining what is wild and what is not. As I said, many of our landscapes that, from a lay perspective, people would perceive to be wild are the result of managed activity over a long period.

I hear what you say, minister. You mention SNH. At a previous meeting, the chief executive of SNH said:

“We cannot offer a clear definition of what is or is not wild land”.

That was followed by the chairman of SNH saying:

“we have been seeking to get a tighter definition that will help everybody.”—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 16 April 2013; c 1235, 1243.]

What is the point of SNH if it cannot come up with the definition that you are looking for?

I have seen the quotations from Ian Jardine at that meeting, and I appreciate where you are coming from. However, the problem is that it is such a subjective issue. If you lined up 100 people in front of an area of landscape and asked them whether they regarded it as wild, you might get quite different answers from those individuals.

That is the point: the debate is not about wild land at all, but about wind turbines. You mentioned wind farms five times in your opening statement, and I have reams of paper in front of me that mention them. The issue has nothing to do with wild land.

10:15

One of the four characteristics concerns the degree to which land contains “artefacts”—that is the term that SNH uses—and whether there is obtrusive human development in that context. That is one of the objective criteria on which SNH has based its map.

It is clear that large onshore turbines in particular—and, to be fair, other man-made structures such as pylons—can impact on the perception of a place as wild, but those criteria are a relatively objective basis on which to proceed.

Let us try some more objectivity, given that I am saying that the debate is largely about wind farms. The wild land research institute at the University of Leeds produced a report for the Scottish Government. It mentioned wild land, but it went on to state:

“In Scotland, effort to safeguard wild land has focused on maintaining the qualities that are valued for recreational”

purposes.

So, we do not want wind turbines, but everybody can traipse across the land as much as they like. Is that the case?

It is not. Our position on wild land is about much more than the issue of whether people can use it for recreation. My view is based on previous planning policy—

But land is not wild if it is being used for recreational purposes.

It is wild land. In some cases, people access wild land using man-made structures such as roads, so there is some degree of intrusion by man into those locations. Existing planning policy states that

“most sensitive landscapes have little or no capacity to accept new development. Areas of wild land character in some of Scotland’s remoter upland, mountain and coastal areas are very sensitive to any form of development”

—not just wind farms—

“or intrusive human activity, and planning authorities should safeguard the character of those areas in the development plan.”

I accept that our debate today centres largely on wind farms, Mr Brodie, but there is a need to protect wild land from obtrusive human development of more than one type. It is not just about wind farms, although they are the most current example of development pressure in those areas.

Would Derek Mackay like to come in?

Thank you, convener. My energies are spent where they are required, and they have been required in this particular area because there have been clear calls to clarify matters. The planning policy review, which we are conducting at the same time as revising the national planning framework, which is set out in statute, is important in the transition to a low-carbon economy and in realising this country’s immense potential. In that context, there is an opportunity to clarify existing policy.

Mr Brodie is correct that the designation and specifications for wind turbines and wind farms are separate from other development issues. Again, the overarching objective of sustainable economic growth continues, but we are giving greater clarity on the appropriate areas of search for local authorities in finding the right place to locate turbines.

SNH is the adviser on relevant natural heritage matters, and it has drawn up a designation of what it perceives to be wild land. That involves, of course, a different designation and category from what SNH has given us before. The designation of areas of wild land is more robust and sophisticated than the previous designation, and rests on the basis of the four key themes of perceived naturalness of land cover, ruggedness of terrain, remoteness of public roads and a visible lack of buildings. That designation feeds into the maps, and GIS technology is used to inform what is appropriate in the group 2 category as it relates to wind turbines. Of course, if we are having a different discussion on general development, that involves a slightly different perspective.

The new designation has increased the amount of wild land. Since the previous zoning, areas of search have been designated as areas of wild land. The percentage of core areas of wild land has gone from 12.7 per cent in 2002 to 20.3 per cent in 2013. That has informed our work, and we are consulting on that presumption. However, the member is absolutely correct that different factors come into play if we move away from wind turbines to other kinds of development. That is why I would return to the core of planning policy, which is that each case is determined on its merits, looking at the range of planning policies and advice notes that come into play.

I hope that that assists the member.

That is very helpful. Can you help me with another point? On the basis of the mapping work that SNH has done, who owns the land and what discussions have taken place on their land being defined as wild land?

The planning system is generally blind to ownership for any application; it looks at the characteristics of the application, as opposed to the ownership of the land. However, we take into account, as a material consideration, the community benefit and economic impact of any application. My proposals that are being consulted on give even greater weighting to economic impact as a material consideration in any planning application. However, we are generally blind to ownership, because the planning system should be about land use and not who owns land.

We can relate this discussion to SNH’s purposes, one of which is to secure the conservation and enhancement of nature and landscapes. That is similar to the planning system, in that it does not have to take into account who owns the land. It would be a farce if we protected a landscape that was deemed to be of value but then, if it came under private ownership, suddenly did not want to protect it any more because we did not have any control over it. We have to take into account the value of our landscapes, irrespective of who owns them. We are blind to ownership in a similar way to the planning system.

I understand that, but it would be helpful to know about ownership, given that another parliamentary committee found that only 21 per cent of Scotland’s land is registered and we do not know who owns the land. Given the discussions that we have had with regard to wind farm applications in particular, one would hope to have a much stronger emphasis on community ownership than on the propagation of wind farms through private land ownership. If a landowner of our designated wild land decides that they want to do something along the lines of wind farms, or something for recreational purposes, I do not see how you will overcome that.

As the minister responsible for the land reform review group, I know that, to a significant extent, the second phase of the group’s work will focus on community ownership. I hope that the group will debate the issues around that. The group will take into account, as a key consideration, who gains from renewables projects and from other economic development in particular areas.

SNH’s mapping work took two and a half years to produce and the NPF3 indicators will take three years to produce. How can a Government body be allowed to move the goalposts? Does it do enough checking beforehand about what is involved? Does it take a finger-in-the-air approach to some things? What monitoring is done of bodies such as SNH to ensure that they achieve delivery of projects as and when they said that they would be delivered?

SNH is subject to annual review, just like other parts of the public sector. I am aware that it took a long time to develop the maps, but the process involved a number of different iterations. Even for the maps that we now have, a degree of judgment was involved for SNH on what criteria to use. Once that was determined, SNH took a scientific approach to developing the outputs so that they were evidence based. All that takes a certain amount of time. In due course, we can consider whether the process could have been faster. However, we have the maps now.

I encourage those who have a view on the maps’ use in respect of NPF3 and the planning policy to take part in the consultation, which closes on 23 July. There is ample time left for people to feed in their views on the appropriateness of the maps being used and any concerns about how they have been generated.

By way of reassurance to the member, I add that I meet regularly all key agencies that interface with the planning system. There are targets for how they perform, and I have senior, high-level meetings with them regularly to ensure that they live up to the Government’s expectations and contribute to a team Scotland approach to our overarching objective, which, I repeat, is sustainable economic growth.

I am not sure that Edinburgh Southern has much in the way of wild land, although we have some protected and beautiful green space.

In his opening remarks, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change said that statutory designation does not confer a bar on development, and that development can still take place, subject to appropriate mitigation. When you were weighing up whether to provide a statutory designation for wild land, and were, no doubt, being advised by experts on what the appropriate course of action would be, what was the compelling argument that led you to decide that wild land should not be given the same status as national parks?

We took into account the fact that any such designation would potentially require a hard line on the ground. As Chic Brodie pointed out, there is always a degree of subjectivity around wild land, even when the map, ultimately, has been based on a rigorous approach, following a subjective judgment about what criteria should be put in place, and has been generated in a scientific way. There is always an element of disagreement about what constitutes wildness and wild land. We took the view that we did not need an extra designation. For example, with regard to onshore wind, our main focus is on identifying the main areas of wild land character that are significant in a national context.

Is it just a question of definition, then? You can define a national park, but you cannot easily define a piece of wild land.

That is a fair point to make, Mr Eadie. It is much easier to deal with an absolute boundary, such as a national park boundary. Wildness is a hard thing to pin down.

What involvement did the Scottish Government have in setting the timetable that Chic Brodie alluded to earlier?

Anne McTaggart will be well aware of the discussions around the national planning framework and the Scottish planning policy, because we discussed the issues just last week at a meeting of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, when I think I went into some detail about engagement and the participation process on those policies.

I am not compelled to consult on the Scottish planning policy in the same way that I have to consult on NPF3, but the Government took the decision to do so. We have published a participation statement that sets out who will engage with whom and how, where, when and why that will take place. All of that is in the public domain. There will be parliamentary scrutiny—indeed, that process kicked off last week at the committee meeting that I mentioned. The main issues report will progress to a recommendation that will be considered by Parliament in relation to the Scottish planning policy. Given the timescales and the 12-week consultation period, we can implement the policies by the end of this year or at the very start of next year. However, in relation to the statutory timetable, NPF3 will be adopted in June 2014.

I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to make the point that existing policies apply until new policies are adopted. That is an important point to make.

There is full and comprehensive engagement on all our proposals for the planning policies. The member can be reassured about the breadth and depth of stakeholder engagement, which will go from the man and woman in the street to the academic experts in particular fields of expertise.

I am very impressed with the co-ordination between our guests. They are quite the Ant and Dec of the ministerial tower.

We have seen the map from Scottish Natural Heritage. Did either you or your predecessors or officials see an earlier version of the map that included a greater spread of land that would potentially be defined as wild land?

I have seen many variations of the maps as they have emerged and evolved over the period. Indeed, in the national planning framework 3 documents that are published, there is a variation of the map. Yes, I have seen variations of the maps, as well as previous and new maps. There is a range of illustrations of what Scotland looks like depending on the indicators, definitions and specifications that we choose to deploy. We have arrived at what we felt was the right balance, which leads to the figure that I already mentioned of around a third of the country having significant or greater protection through the policies on wind farms.

10:30

The only maps that I have seen that have shown a wider extent of coverage were relative wildness maps that underpin the core wild land map to which we are now working in the NPF3 and Scottish planning policy consultations. I have seen no map that has had a wider definition of core wild land, if that is the point that you are making, Mr Carlaw.

So you can both offer the committee the assurance that at no point did you as ministers, your predecessors or your officials have a conversation in which you suggested to Scottish Natural Heritage that you would prefer a scaling down of any plan to define wild land.

It is perfectly acceptable for SNH to produce any map that it chooses and it is then for ministers to determine what advice they take forward to put in their proposals. It is then for any committee or any member of the Parliament to propose an alternative. We have used the map of wildness that we think is appropriate for the purposes that we have set out but, of course, there are alternatives that other members may wish to choose. We could draw up a map of Scotland that said that there should be no wind farms or development anywhere, but we think that we have struck the right balance.

I am not asking for that. I was simply asking—and I do not think that I have quite got the assurance that I sought—whether you as ministers, your predecessors or your officials had a conversation with Scottish Natural Heritage in which you invited it to produce a map that reduced the scope of the wild land proposal.

No. We have asked for advice on what considerations can be taken into account. For example, the definition that we have provided, which I mentioned earlier, with the four key characteristics of wild land, has produced a map. That is what we have included in our consultation document and environmental impact assessment and it is what I propose to use to guide planning policy in future.

For my part, I have not asked SNH to scale back the coverage of wild land. However, I cannot speak for my predecessors, so I ask Keith Connal to confirm my understanding of the position before I was a minister.

I am grateful for that.

I will not ask how many wind turbines there are but, having approved so many of them, you will be able to tell me the average height.

Mr Carlaw’s probing question may be appropriate, but I will have to go back and see whether we hold such information. I do not know it off the top of my head.

The reason why I ask is that you talked about mitigation. I understand how we can mitigate against a bothy for hillwalkers or a visitor centre, but I am not sure how we mitigate against a wind turbine that may be several hundred feet tall. Do we paint it as a giant thistle? When you talk about mitigation as being the protection against the development of wind turbines on wild land, I am at a loss as to what the mitigation is.

It seems to be that it is lily livered of you to decide that you are not going to underpin the policy in statute. It is all very well for erudite, virile and thrusting ministers to make bland assertions and say that, with mitigation, there need not be any concern about the development of wind turbines in wild land, but give me an example of the sort of mitigation against a wind turbine that you would think appropriate.

For example, we would not paint it the colours of a thistle, as I dare say that that would draw attention to it. An example of mitigation is location so that wind turbines are not in a particularly prominent place. A site can be moved and wind turbines can be screened. Cumulative impact is also a consideration. Those are examples of how turbines can be located so that they are not as prominent as they might otherwise be.

I am not sure that that is really a definition of mitigation. In essence, no particular protection arises as a result of the Government’s favoured approach.

A number of factors might be taken into account with regard to the impact on the landscape, such as the height of the turbines. There could be a revised proposal, in which the turbine height came down. As Derek Mackay alluded to, the turbines could be resited to a different position so that they were less intrusive, and the number of turbines could be varied. There are means by which the impact of a proposal might be mitigated short of removing the turbines altogether.

I am grateful and that is helpful. In essence, you are saying that wind turbines can carry on regardless, provided that they are of the right height, that they are in the right quantity, and that from a particular angle they cannot be seen. Is that fair to say?

I do not think that I said “carry on regardless”, although I am sure that that is a good movie.

There is no protection. Your desire and wish is that those factors should be taken into account, but there is no statutory underpinning of that. It is just your opinion, rather than being any particular authority that would be required to be observed.

I would cite much greater authority than myself. I would cite, for example, Mary Scanlon MSP, who said in debate that we have been waiting a long time for these policies and that she welcomed them, or Murdo Fraser, who said that the Government was stealing the Conservatives’ policy. It appears that there is some support for the policy approach—the preferred approach, as Mr Carlaw has described it.

For example, we also propose an extension of the distance from settlements, cities, towns and villages at which turbines can be located from 2km to 2.5km. I know that the Conservatives’ preferred distance is 2km, but we propose to extend that somewhat in view of the opinions that local communities quite rightly express.

I say again that it is for local planners to determine applications based on the circumstances that are presented, to get the right development in the right places. Jackson Carlaw said that there was no greater protection. In fact, we are proposing a complete ban in some parts of Scotland and greater protection in another third. If you consider the proposals on separation distances and cumulative impact, as well as the urban nature of the rest of Scotland, you will see that there has been quite a substantial shift in our position. It strikes a balance between transition to a low-carbon economy and protecting the environment.

Mr Carlaw suggested that we “carry on regardless”. There are other factors that are taken into account in any application of any type in an area that has an environmental designation, such as impact on natural environment more generally, including wildlife issues, hydrology and so on. A number of factors are taken into account, not just visual impact.

Mr Mackay, we tend not to pursue matters along partisan, party-political lines in the Public Petitions Committee. I am here to represent the interest of the petitioner. He has made these points to me and I am simply representing them to you.

I fully respect that. I am simply relying on great sources of information from your party.

That was said with all the sincerity that you can muster for your best performance, minister.

I return to the fact that an underpinning of this in statute, which I think is what the petitioner seeks, would afford the sort of protection that is looked for. I understand the point about general development, but surely even you can draw a distinction between the sort of sympathetic development that is of assistance to those who take advantage of wild land and the slightly more commercial development of wild land with something as intrusive as a wind turbine. I accept your proposition that that underpins a lot of this, but does something more than just your hope underpin it?

Planning policy is generally not a matter of statute; it is generally a matter of policy, although of course there are questions around interpretation. The petitioner may have a view about a statutory designation, but the planning system just does not work like that. The planning system is guided by a planning hierarchy, which starts with NPF3. The process is statutory, but the policies that it produces are not. There is then the Scottish planning policy and development plans. How we arrive at that must be fully transparent, fair and robust, but it does not lead to statutory designations; it leads to planning policy.

We are deploying the same approach to this. Imagine that every time we wanted to change maps, designations or any matter for consideration we had to take it through primary legislation. It would be completely disproportionate. The Government’s view is that this is the most proportionate and fair process to take.

Good morning, gentlemen. I wish to explore further the definition of wild land and how it fits in with local authority development plans. Mr Mackay has already touched on this. The draft SPP states, at paragraph 129:

“Plans should identify and safeguard areas of wild land character. This should be based on Scottish Natural Heritage mapping of core wild land, published in 2013. Wild land character is displayed in some of Scotland’s remoter upland, mountain and coastal areas, which are very sensitive to any form of intrusive human activity and have little or no capacity to accept new development.”

Does the draft SPP provide adequate clarity for local authorities in drawing up their development plans?

Yes, I believe that it does. That particular paragraph is not a major shift from existing policy. There is a distinction between the policies that are relevant for the wind turbines and those that are relevant for other developments. There are considerations around both. Because there has been no significant shift in the policy as it relates to other developments, I would imagine that there is a degree of clarity and consistency there.

To assist with planning authorities, which are facing some challenges right now, there is a 20 per cent increase in planning fees, which will lead to a better resource planning system. We have also given one-off grants to help with the capacity of planning authorities for renewables and other areas. For example, £20,000 has gone to Heads of Planning Scotland. I am convinced that there is clarity and consistency around the policy and how authorities approach their local development plans. With the extra resources, authorities will have the capacity to see through some of the pressures that they face at this time. I hope that that answers the member’s question.

The SPP states that strategic development plans should identify capacity for onshore wind and cumulative impact pressures. It says that local development plans should set out spatial frameworks. The existing SPP enables local authorities to group local designations with national and international designations as areas to be protected from wind farm development. The approach that was proposed in the consultation, and therefore in the draft SPP, makes it clear that local designations should not be given the same weight as national or international designations. That gives clarity as to the hierarchy, as the Minister for Local Government and Planning has said.

Ministers, you clearly believe that the guidance is adequate, but are there any plans to provide further guidance for local authorities, given that there have been inconsistencies in implementation across the country to date?

Yes, there will be guidance, of course. If we amend the Scottish planning policy and national planning framework 3, as we propose, that will require new guidance. There will be new guidance as a result of both documents. That is necessary and helpful. That will not be a panacea for local planning authorities—it is not as if every planner will then have the magic answer for every difficult application—but there will be policy clarity, and there will be guidance to assist with that. Furthermore, there has been extra resource.

Where I am looking from—from the perspective of SNH and from my side of the house—I would wish to ensure that there is as much clarity as possible about how to interpret cumulative impact in respect of the spatial frameworks. The spatial frameworks will be increasingly important. There might be potential for a local authority to feel, on the basis of the evidence presented to it, that the cumulative impact has reached such a point that the land concerned has to be moved from group 3 to group 2. We need to give authorities clarity about how that works, and we need to give clarity to applicants, too, so that they understand the process.

I wish to follow up on some of the questions that have been asked by my colleagues, in particular on the issue of why there seems to be an emphasis on wind turbines, with no reference to hydro power stations, telecommunications masts or pylons, for instance. I refer to recent developments and the height of some of the pylons that are going to be strung across Scotland. My understanding is that some of them will be greater in height than some of the turbines that are going to be sited at wind farms.

Issues are also arising more and more often to do with hill tracks that are created by landowners. How do the ministers tie in such issues with what the Government is attempting to do in developing its policies and guidance to ensure that we can reflect the issues in relation to many types of development, rather than just concentrating on wind farms and wind turbines?

I also take some exception to what Jackson Carlaw said about individual wind turbines. When I look out every morning to the farm across the back from me and when I drive up to the house, I see a wind turbine that sits there on its own and can be viewed for miles around. For many residents in my area, that single wind turbine has greater visual impact than a wind farm would.

10:45

The Government has every intention of meeting our renewable energy targets and delivering the transition to a low-carbon economy. Mr Wilson asks why we spend so much time on wind turbines; we do so because that is what we have been asked to do and because that is where there have been a number of questions about pressures in the system. Mr Wilson and Anne McTaggart will recall that, when I outlined the full vision of the national planning framework and the Scottish planning policy last week, I covered a great deal of issues in addition to renewables.

On the important issue of hill tracks, again there is a balance to be struck between regulation or perceived overregulation through the planning system and supporting economic activity in the rural parts of Scotland. Following our consultation on that, we came to the view that we would continue monitoring and taking further evidence on the issue but we would not introduce full planning applications for every aspect. Of course, planning applications are required for hill tracks in some areas, and we are launching new guidance to ensure that hill tracks are built to an appropriate standard. We are not close minded on the issue, although it was consulted on in the previous planning consultation. There is an important balance between protecting the environment and allowing agricultural and forest activity, but for many other functions planning applications are already required.

Let me just add one point on the issue of pylons that Mr Wilson raised. Where it has been possible, practical and environmentally sustainable, undergrounding has been sought on a number of occasions, but clearly a balance must be struck. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to go overground rather than underground, if there would be greater damage to peatland or other important habitats from undergrounding, which would require taking out a trench the full length of the cable. Yes, pylons have a visual impact, but in some cases that will be potentially less damaging to the wider environment than undergrounding the cables.

I thank the ministers for their response.

My final question follows on from Angus MacDonald’s earlier question. How do we ensure that we get consistency from local planning departments in their interpretation of designations and of the guidance that is issued by the Government? Developers need to be able to understand the Government’s requirements on siting, design and mitigation for major developments, given that developers as well as planning departments can make inappropriate demands in applications. It is left up to individual local authorities to make decisions but, despite Mr Mackay’s assertion, in many cases they need more resources if their local planning departments are to give better consideration to planning applications. How do we ensure that we have a consistent approach throughout Scotland, including among developers?

I am not sure that I would agree with the member’s generalisation, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so let me pick two organisations that have commented on the policy. The John Muir Trust said:

“We are pleased that the Scottish Government recognises the importance of wild land as an important part of our cultural heritage and international profile.”

Arguably, that is a welcome for what is a step in the right direction. At the other end of the spectrum, the director of policy for Scottish Renewables is reported as saying:

“Onshore wind is absolutely key to meeting Scotland’s climate change and renewable energy targets and excluding large areas of the country suitable for wind farms could potentially slow progress to achieving these objectives.”

However, she went on to say that Scottish Renewables appreciates that clarity is required. I also draw the member’s attention to the fact that the proposed policies have been welcomed by Heads of Planning Scotland. They are the practitioners who will have to implement the policies, and they are content with what we propose.

Developers, representatives of the environmental lobby and the practitioners are all giving a warm welcome—if I can describe it as that—for the proposed policies. That said, I cannot say that there will never be local discretion or an inconsistency in the system. Different parts of Scotland have different characteristics and will, therefore, interpret the policies differently. It would be wrong of us, in Edinburgh, to try to create a formula that would prejudge every application other than the ban that we have proposed for group 1. I cannot guarantee that there will never be inconsistency, but there will be clear policies that can be interpreted and delivered locally.

We are a bit short of time, so I ask for a quick final comment from Chic Brodie.

It goes back to the lack of a definition of wild land. Last night, the BBC ran another episode in its series about the introduction of wildlife in the Hebrides. In your opinion, is it okay to have defined wild land inhabited by the creatures that inhabit it and yet have people out there shooting grouse and stags and fishing for salmon in some areas? Why is that acceptable when the production of energy for future demand is not acceptable?

According to the definitions that SNH has used in building up its core wild land map, it is about structures rather than deer and people running around shooting deer. I take your point about the need to protect the environment and about the impact of sporting activities on the natural habitat. In many areas, however, shooting is essential to the management of deer numbers to ensure that habitats are protected from overgrazing. I recently saw some published statistics on protected features, and some of the most endangered protected features are overgrazed by deer, sheep or a combination of the two. Wildlife obviously has an impact on our natural environment, but the definitions that SNH has used in preparing its core wild land map do not include consideration of species, whether or not they are being hunted. It is about built structures and the degree to which landscapes are impacted on by obtrusive, man-made development.

I bow to my colleague’s greater expertise in wildlife and rural matters. At the core of your question is the issue of balancing the production of energy with other forms of land use. The Government is content that we can meet our renewables targets and our climate change targets, which are the most ambitious in the world, by affording greater protection to the high-quality environment that we enjoy as well as by deploying policies that ensure that we will meet those targets, which include greater offshore development and repowering existing sites. The notion that the rest of the country will be blanketed with wind farms because of that policy is nonsense. We will strike the right balance between protecting the environment, continuing our sustainable economic growth agenda in a balanced way and getting the right developments in the right places. Scotland can clearly capitalise on renewables technology because of the environment that we are blessed with.

Mr Wheelhouse, I will give you the chance to add to that briefly. I mispronounced your name earlier and you are due something back.

Thank you, convener. Climate change is, of course, one of the greatest threats that our landscape faces. As Mr Mackay has said, it is important to get a balance in ensuring that we are able to develop our renewable energy, because if we do not, vital landscapes such as South Uist and other parts of the Hebrides will potentially be vulnerable to rising sea levels and the extreme damage that we may face from climate change.

We have had a very interesting session with our witnesses, and I know that we could have gone on for a lot longer. I ask the witnesses to stay while we consider the next stage.

There is a suggestion in our recommendations that we consider referring the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, as it will, of course, be looking at national planning framework 3 and reviewing the Scottish planning policy. However, as always, it is for all members of the committee to decide what action to take. I seek members’ views on the next steps.

On the basis that we are all struggling to define what we are trying to do and approaching the matter through different frames of reference, I wonder whether there is any other appropriate action that we can take. The issue has been aired significantly, and we have thrashed out all the views as thoroughly as we can. I am not sure that it is right to dump the petition on the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to go round the same loop.

Chic Brodie is right. We have had an opportunity to look at the issues, and I am minded to close the petition.

I am likewise.

The views of the John Muir Trust have been well aired and taken on board by a number of bodies, so closing the petition would be fair enough.

As a substitute member of the committee, I will on this occasion defer to colleagues, who have considered the issue in greater depth than I have.

As ministers have set their face against the petitioner’s design to move the proposal into statute, there is little more that the committee can do. I accept that the issues have been well aired and think that the debate will move elsewhere now.

The committee’s overall view is clear. We need to close the petition, not because we are not interested in it but because the Government’s position is quite clear.

I thank the John Muir Trust for the petition, and particularly Helen McDade, who has done a lot of hard work on the issue. The committee has learned a lot about the quite technical details that are involved.

We thank our witnesses for coming to the meeting. The session has been very useful. The area of work is quite difficult, but you have performed well going through your paces, as Jackson Carlaw said earlier. The issue will run and run in the long term. I appreciate your time.

10:57 Meeting suspended.

10:58 On resuming—