Official Report 110KB pdf
Eco-villages (Planning Policy) (PE903)
The third item on the agenda is petition PE903 by Eurig Scandrett, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to develop and introduce a Scottish planning policy document on eco-villages.
I did not know about the petition until the papers for this meeting were circulated, but I see that Mr Eurig Scandrett has an address in my constituency and that he submitted the petition in August 2005. I held surgeries very close to where he lives in that month, but he has never been in touch with me—whether in writing, at a surgery or by any other means—although I am his constituency MSP. I would be delighted to see an eco-village established at Leuchie or anywhere else—it is an attractive idea—but there is a procedural issue that must be addressed before we can take the petition forward. The section of the Public Petitions Committee's guidance entitled "Action taken before submitting the petition" assumes that people have raised issues with councillors, MSPs and so on beforehand. Christine Grahame is one of the regional members for the area. Has the petitioner been in touch with you, Christine?
No. I do not think that the guidance requires petitioners to have been in touch with an MSP before submitting their petition—that would be rather restrictive. However, if a petition relates to planning, they should get in touch with their local authority. That is not a political issue.
The substance of the petition is not controversial—I have no problem with it. However, I am concerned about how the petitioner has approached the matter. Constituents have the opportunity to raise issues, but the petition has come to us in an oblique manner. I am not sure whether it is necessary for us to have a special SPP for eco-villages, but I ask the committee to note my comments on how such issues are raised with Parliament.
I understand that there is nothing to prevent an individual or community group from submitting a petition to the Parliament and that they do not have to go through MSPs. Although it would assist such individuals or groups to contact their MSPs, who, I am sure, would be more than happy to give them what help they could, people have the right to submit petitions on their own and to make representations to the Public Petitions Committee. If Mr Home Robertson would like to pursue the general issue that he has highlighted, I suggest that he raise it in a letter to Michael McMahon, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, and ask that committee to reflect on it. We need to get the balance right, so that individuals or groups who feel that an issue is important and want to raise it with the Public Petitions Committee are allowed to do so.
I echo much of what the convener has said. I would not be particularly comfortable about our writing to the convener of the Public Petitions Committee to raise the issue that John Home Robertson has highlighted. MSPs are available to individuals, but we are not gatekeepers. The principle behind the Public Petitions Committee is to give people a range of ways of approaching matters that they may not regard as constituency issues or that they do not wish to raise through an MSP. There is nothing in the papers that suggests that the Public Petitions Committee has a problem with issues being brought to it in petitions if those issues have not been raised first with constituency or regional MSPs. Petitioners are required to mention the actions that have been taken before submitting their petition. In this case, the petitioner has done so; his statement is available to us and is entirely appropriate.
In the Highlands, the Findhorn Foundation, which sent a submission to the Public Petitions Committee, has been and is a great success. That eco-village developed successfully within the current framework. A local authority could duplicate the Findhorn experience if it were minded to do so and the local enterprise company could assist if it wanted to do so. The Findhorn Foundation says:
The briefing paper on the petition invites the committee to consider a recommendation that we write to the Scottish Executive to ask whether it will include more specific references to eco-villages in relevant planning policies and advice notes. However, the Executive mentioned SPP3 in its letter to the Public Petitions Committee, and it is clear that nothing prevents an application for an eco-village from being granted. The Executive refers to the need for a "plan-led approach". I agree with Jamie Stone on that point. We should respond to the petitioner and the Public Petitions Committee by saying that current legislation allows eco-villages if the local authority grants planning permission for such projects. Of course, if a local authority was difficult, applicants would have other recourse.
Like most members, I instinctively support the principle behind the petition. We are all much more aware of the need for eco-villages, energy efficiency and a smaller ecological footprint.
I do not disagree with Jamie Stone. The petitioner's desired approach is inherent in the planning process already—indeed, it was inherent in the previous planning process. This is about sustainable development; there should be no exception, special rule or special request.
I certainly agree with Dave Petrie that the idea of eco-villages should be encouraged, and the Executive's support for it seems to imply that as well. The question is really how it should be encouraged. The petitioner argues that an SPP on eco-villages would be a mechanism for encouraging them; the Executive or other members might take the view that a different mechanism would be more appropriate. We should communicate with the Executive, and perhaps with others, as Tricia Marwick has suggested. Given that we are all committed to reducing our ecological footprint and that so many agencies, including the Executive, support the principle of eco-villages, what mechanisms are we going to use to encourage them?
I return briefly to the procedural point that I raised earlier. I agree with colleagues that it would be entirely wrong for MSPs to be gatekeepers as far as petitions are concerned. That said, in addition to submitting petitions, it would be useful for citizens and groups to work directly with MSPs as a way of making representations to the Executive and getting information. I am not suggesting that we should write to the Public Petitions Committee about this, but I will have a word with Michael McMahon to suggest that a bit of informal advice could be given to petitioners that they could also speak to their local constituency or regional list MSPs about their ideas.
We have had a considerable discussion on the petition and, at times, the debate has become polarised. Eco-villages can be and have been created in Scotland. Patrick Harvie shows an understandable desire to get the issue on to the political agenda, but no one is suggesting that there is anything to prevent an eco-village from being created in Scotland.
Okay, that is agreed. We will write to the Scottish Executive and advise the petitioner accordingly.
Meeting continued in private until 11:27.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation