Official Report 365KB pdf
I welcome the Deputy Minister for Communities, Johann Lamont. She is accompanied by officials from the Scottish Executive's planning division: Michaela Sullivan, who is the assistant chief planner, and Rosie Leven, who is the principal planner. Thank you for joining us this morning. Would you like to make your opening statement?
I am grateful to you for allowing me to make a statement. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to any questions that the committee has on draft SPP 21. However, before I do, it might be useful if I briefly set out the Executive's position.
You have touched on a number of points that committee members will wish to pursue with you this morning. I want to ask about the work of the task group. I am sure that its members were representative, but how did you ensure that the Executive listened to the views of all interested parties and included them in your deliberations?
We seek to have representative groups, but they cannot be comprehensive. We genuinely tried to have the range of views represented. The process that we are now following must be given significant weight, in addition to what the group said. We are conscious that some organisations would have liked to be on the review group; special efforts were made to engage directly with organisations that might have sought representation on the group but which were not represented on it. We tried to be as open as possible. Because we all have a great interest in the policy, we have not approached it with a closed mind, so if we can reflect on particular issues that people pursue we will do so.
Many organisations have an interest in the policy. The Executive tries hard to equality proof its legislation, but it might not be apparent that equalities groups have an interest in the policy. Were their views considered, or were they at least given the opportunity to engage in your consultation process?
You are right that, because it does not immediately pop into our heads that equalities groups would be interested in the policy, consulting them is not, perhaps, the first box to tick. I ask Rosie Leven to say who we consulted.
We consulted the normal range of bodies that are on our planning distribution list—a set of bodies is consulted on all the documents that the planning division produces. Off the top of my head, I cannot say whether the full range of equalities groups are on that list, but we will certainly check that and get back to them.
We will check that, because it will be particularly important that we have got that right as we go through the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill process. We will confirm who we have consulted. If the list is not as comprehensive as we would wish, that will be sorted out before the bill is passed.
It would be much easier just to have a copy of the list of consultees.
I assume that there is no problem with giving us the list.
I was going to do more than just photocopy a list for you. Any correspondence on the matter will include the list.
That is great—thank you.
In my initial statement, I referred to the changes. The controversial change relates to coalescence. We recognise that people might be concerned about the implications of that, but we are reassured that the policy is intended to address urban sprawl and that we are establishing proper development plans. Linking the policy as closely as possible to the development plan process will give us the greatest security.
The Planning etc (Scotland) Bill will place a statutory obligation on local authorities to update development plans every five years. The proposed timeframe for a green belt is 20 years. How will those two timescales work together effectively? Do you foresee difficulties?
When people draw up a development plan, they should also consider the 20-year plan for the green belt, and if they revisit the development plan, they should still be considering the 20-year plan for the green belt. The development plan should identify the green belt and the growth areas, and consider development over the longer term. That should offer reassurance to those who are concerned about the green belt. Lack of clarity and lack of medium and long-term planning can lead to pressures on people to breach their green belt. Although the development plan is considered every five years, that is done in the context of a 20-year plan for the green belt. In addition, there is crossover to other planning policies—in particular, to SPP 3, which is the housing planning policy and covers the issue of settlements.
How will the Executive set out the procedures for the review of green-belt boundaries? Do you intend to issue a planning advice note?
In evidence to this committee and elsewhere, a feeling has been expressed that more detailed guidance is required. Some of your witnesses said that they did not want another planning advice note; they wanted the key role of local authorities to be acknowledged and for them to be given as much leeway as they needed. People felt that more detail was required in the planning policy, and we would be happy to consider whether more guidance could be included in the SPP, rather than having a separate PAN.
It is important to strike the right balance so that local authorities do not feel constrained. Communities and developers must understand how they can engage in the process when, in the interests of the wider community, changes might be appropriate.
The argument over where guidance should go can be slightly academic; the real argument is whether the guidance is necessary. It was generally acknowledged that more clarity was required.
I want to ask about paragraph 16 of SPP 21, on inner boundaries. I have always understood that the green belt was sacrosanct and could never be built on, but paragraph 16 says:
I read the evidence that was given to the committee and I did not detect that degree of confusion. I do not think that SPP 21 is contradictory. It will help to protect the green belt. Just because a green-belt policy is useful in certain places, it does not have to be applied everywhere; the green-belt policy will not wither on the vine in the longer term.
I will not dwell on the matter for too long, but I point out that a contradiction is involved if it is said, on the one hand, that
Those two things can be said; indeed, the policy will ensure that people are sensible about where green belts are placed. A green belt can be robustly protected if the pressure for development and growth in the space between the green belt and the urban area—I think that such space is called white land—has been recognised and there is not huge pressure where development is needed. Green belt can be robustly protected because it will have been recognised that there will be change over time, and growth over time will have been allowed for in identifiable areas. Green belts are easier to defend on that basis.
I do not want to pursue the matter, but the area to the inner boundary will obviously be more open to development and there will be a greater presumption for development than there will be at the outer boundary. Therefore, you cannot say that the inner boundary will be robustly protected, given that there is obviously—
Yes, we can. Phased development over time will be allowed in the space between the two boundaries.
Yes; phased development over time will be allowed.
Jonathon Hall, who appeared as a witness, raised that issue. We all understand—indeed, some people understand far better than I do—the different nature of rural communities, rural employment and industry, the rural economy and so on, and we do not want to do things that would prevent imaginative diversity in rural development. We are keen for the policy to link in with SPP 15, which is on planning for rural development and would contextualise it. We are certainly open to having a dialogue about whether there are things that we need to say or to clarify in the planning policy that would mean that diversification in the rural economy, with which we would all be comfortable, will not unnecessarily be inhibited.
You mentioned tourism, which was not mentioned originally. We will return to that matter briefly.
Such matters would be explored and explained through development plans. Rather than its being said that two settlements must be kept separate, local authorities could identify the best way of dealing with matters in development plans. There is a logical way of proceeding. Development plans would need to clarify matters.
So there is no national guidance. It will be up to the local authority to decide what would be in the best interests of the area.
The matter would fall to local authorities, because it is part of their general development planning responsibilities for their areas. A development plan is required to consider a settlement strategy, growth or contractions in population projections, strategic transport routes and everything in the round—that is what a development plan is for. The local authority development planners would do all the research, look at how the settlement is evolving and decide on the most appropriate way in which to balance all the demands. In certain circumstances, particularly along strategic transport corridors, the most sensible way to enable a settlement to grow might be to allow a settlement plus adjoining settlements to join together. That might be better than having new developments outside the green-belt area. Alternatively, more sensitive parts of green-belt areas elsewhere could be released.
My constituency includes the outer edge of a green-belt area. It is a pity that the phrase
As I have explained, it is not a case of the boundary being elastic: the boundary is not drawn too tightly to what you would perceive as the edge of urban development. The word "tightly" means close to—there will not be absolute boundaries, with a settlement on one side and green belt on the other, nor will the outer limit be fixed while the inner boundaries are negotiable. That is not what is being said. We must recognise that there is a ring round urban areas that should be like a breathing space for development. That addresses some of the concerns that have been raised in the committee about what the consequences for other areas will be of cities having, and protecting, green belt.
The matter should be considered in the total context of development planning, including the guidance in SPP 3 and the fact that the development plan should have a 20-year horizon for the settlement. We are saying that the local authority, as a starting point, should examine aspects such as population projection and consider how the settlement might grow and change over the next 20 years. For example, the population in a settlement might be considered likely to expand by 2,000. We suggest that the local authority, rather than drawing a green-belt boundary that stops at the urban edge and does not allow for housing, schools and employment land for those extra people, acknowledges that the settlement will grow over those years and that those people will need to be accommodated.
That is commendably pragmatic, and I am sure that we can all go along with it. However, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A small town or village on the outside edge of the boundary could just as easily have similar long and medium-term planning needs for industry, housing or whatever. SPP 21 has been written in a way that suggests that the inner boundaries should not be drawn too tightly, but the outer boundaries are presumably being drawn very tightly. More thought needs to be put into that, so that the policy is seen to be fair to towns and villages that are outside green-belt areas.
There is no intention of not being fair to other towns, villages and settlements. SPP 15, on rural development, may address some of that. Also, that may be addressed through the city region plans, the structure plans and so on, in the planning process. It is important to have a dialogue across local authority boundaries.
It sure is.
In developing a green belt and a development plan through the city region process, it is important to have that dialogue to see whether there are unintended consequences or pressures in other directions.
I do not want to go on, but I invite the minister to reflect on what looks very much like a discriminatory term in the document. It might be worth giving that a bit of thought.
I am more than happy to do that. The concerns are around what you are taking from that and, more broadly, the policy issue around the implications for settlements that are on the other side of the green belt. I am more than happy to look at that.
Christine Grahame has a specific question to ask on that point.
My question is about the way in which a green belt's boundaries interact with the development plans that local communities look at. The minister has brought home to me the fact that people should be looking at the local development plans for other areas, not just the plans for their own area. Perhaps that will be reflected in the evidence that we take next. When there is mandatory consultation with a community on the local development plan, that community should also look at neighbouring areas' local development plans because of the impact of green belts on its area. That may be an issue to raise.
That is being addressed specifically through city region planning.
I had thought of that as well, but I think that there is a requirement for communities to look beyond their own development plan boundaries.
My next question is on the theme of rural development within the green belt. Agriculture, horticulture and traditional rural industries are dynamic and change over time. The minister has acknowledged that that should be permitted and that appropriate development of businesses that employ people in the green belt will be considered sympathetically. She might want to endorse that.
Yes. We have said that, if people have specific suggestions for what should be put in the policy, we will consider them. The policy should be viewed in the context of other policies, though, and we want to reflect the overarching policy of SPP 15 on rural development. It would not make sense if a green-belt policy ran counter to the Executive's general commitment to diversifying the rural economy.
That is most welcome and deals with the small agricultural diversifications that might be appropriate. The document also refers to existing major developments in green-belt areas—airports and other institutions that may be located there. As the policy is written, it looks as though such developments have almost carte blanche to expand and develop. I hope that the situation is not quite as straightforward as that.
I hope that we would not give anybody carte blanche to do anything in planning.
Paragraph 23 of SPP 21 proposes the exclusion of such developments
I shall say this many times over the next couple of months, but the development plan is key. Any developments would have to be viewed in the context of a thoughtful, well-prepared, well-considered and evidenced development plan and in the context of the city region plans.
So, we had better watch that space. Thank you.
Minister, you have referred to guidance. On the development and protection of the green belts, the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning believes that clearer guidance is needed on the redevelopment of existing sites or brownfield land in the green belt. I am looking at paragraph 25 of the draft policy. I note what you have said about guidance—that it is academic whether it is included in the policy document or put in a separate document—but will you comment on the need for clearer guidance to planners on the redevelopment of brownfield sites? Such sites occur in rural areas as well as in cities. There are many old industrial sites in Galashiels and Hawick, for example.
Are you talking about brownfield sites?
Yes. I am talking about developing brownfield sites to protect green belt.
We need to think about how much needs to go into SPP 21 to reflect what people are asking for. I accept that brownfield sites are part of that, too.
Many people see industrial sites in their local areas that have been derelict for a long time. Perhaps somebody is holding on to those sites for good commercial reasons, but they have not been redeveloped and are a blight. Such sites could be used for development and perhaps we could do with some guidance on that in SPP 21. That leads me to ask whether we have an audit of available brownfield land. Do we know how much there is in Scotland?
I will ask for some official advice on that, but my recollection is that I have seen some parliamentary questions that at least explore whether there is an audit or to what extent it is possible to identify how much brownfield land and how much contaminated land there is in local authority areas. Perhaps Rosie Leven knows more about that.
Vacant derelict land is recorded and we have figures for that, but I am not sure whether we have figures for brownfield land specifically. We would have to check the PQs that the minister mentioned and check the figures for you.
It would be very interesting to know not only how much vacant and derelict land there is, but how much contaminated land, because there are other issues that follow on from that. When could we have that information?
As soon as possible.
We know that that is elastic, minister. It would be useful to have the information when we are considering green belt.
I do not like to lay down timescales for work that I am not going to do myself without knowing what is involved.
Such information about brownfield land ought to be available for the use of society as a whole, not just the committee. That is a serious point.
By and large, local authorities carry out audits of the brownfield land in their areas, so each local authority will have a brownfield audit document for its area. I do not know how comprehensive and up to date those documents are, but local authorities tend to conduct such audits because they form part of development planning and the redevelopment of urban brownfield land is a priority.
That means that the Executive is in a position to get the information in a reasonable timescale.
We could ask every local authority in Scotland to supply a copy of its audit.
Yes, and you could collate it for us.
Yes.
Witnesses have suggested that new green belts should be created in Scotland. What is your opinion on that?
The draft policy says that we do not envisage huge numbers of new green belts. We realise that there are places, such as St Andrews, where people are actively arguing for green belt. There might be other ways of securing the same outcomes without designating green belt, but that would have to be established through the development plan.
Making more use of brownfield sites in all areas—picturesque places as well as urban areas—might tie in with the ability to create more green belts.
There are other tensions surrounding brownfield sites in cities. People might regard them as being for developments other than housing. There are pressures in cities such as Glasgow, where every available development site seems to be taken up. We acknowledge those tensions.
I got the impression that more people want to live in cities and want warehouses to be developed into housing. The sprawl that encroaches on to green belts usually consists of housing developments. There is a move towards people living nearer their work and in city centres, so brownfield sites could be used to take the pressure off green belt.
Nobody is arguing against that. We are keen to retain in SPP 21 the presumption against development on green belt, but there has to be a sensible agreement about where the green belt is and why it is there.
The Scottish planning consultants forum suggested that green belt should be a functioning planning tool, whatever that means. Do you know what it means, minister?
I think that the SPCF said that the green belt is one planning tool among many. If we define a planning tool as a means by which to manage development, the changes that grow settlements over time and so on, green-belt policy is part of that process.
Should the policy be reviewed?
It is being reviewed, is it not, in the draft policy?
The Executive is reviewing the policy now, but should it be reviewed again at some stage, in the longer term?
It would not be possible to stop such a review if ministers wanted to do that. Yes, of course, it could be done again.
So you are saying that it is set for 20 years.
As I said, in producing development plans, we expect local authorities to envisage their green belts as a 20-year strategy.
My interest is more in brownfield development, but I asked the question because the point was raised by the SPCF.
I return to the theme of developments around the green belt, which Scott Barrie, Tricia Marwick and other members explored in some detail at our previous meeting. I refer to the issue of developers leapfrogging green belts, which leads to housing development outside the green belt.
Again, I return to what I said about the need for green-belt policy to recognise the growth that takes place over time. City region plans are needed, together with dialogue across local authorities and an understanding of the implications that the decisions of one local authority can have on other authorities. Clearly, local authorities have a democratic accountability to their citizens and responsibilities that they have to discharge. However, someone at the centre of Edinburgh should not determine development across Scotland. That said, we contextualise solutions; we do not determine them.
We will have another opportunity to discuss that issue. There is anxiety that a city region will inevitably be dominated by the city, so we will need to have checks and balances to ensure that neighbouring areas have their say in development plans.
Glasgow has very challenging problems in relation to the green belt. For example, because of council tax considerations, there are pressures to develop land to keep people within the city boundary. People are choosing to move out of Glasgow.
I want to ask about the protection of open space. Paragraph 19 of SPP 21 says:
Earlier, I explained about the development plan process and the 20-year horizon. A major release would entail a redrawing of the green-belt boundary in the context of statistical analysis that suggested that a particular settlement would need to grow during those 20 years. I would not want to put a number on what would constitute a major release; a major release for St Andrews could be significantly smaller than a major release for Edinburgh or Glasgow.
I can see the difficulty that people have commented on, but to imagine that a green-belt boundary is fixed for all time is artificial too. If the proposal is to replace released land with additional green-belt land elsewhere, I presume that that land will be added at the outer boundary of the green belt. It is not possible just to create some more land and put it inside the boundary of a green belt around a city.
We have to look at that. What you say comes back to what John Home Robertson said, which was that releasing land might have consequences elsewhere that might be regarded as inappropriate. It might seem like a simple solution to take a bit of land here and put a bit back there, but that might have consequences elsewhere. We can look at that.
You mentioned the relationship between green-belt policy and the development plan system. At our previous meeting in December, there was some discussion about the idea that, as the green-belt policy and locations develop over time, any future changes will be contingent on the Executive's objectives for the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill being fulfilled and on the reformed planning system making the development plan system work effectively, so that plans are up to date and there is proper involvement. Is it the Executive's view that—as we have heard in evidence—any future changes to green-belt policy should be considered only if those wider planning objectives are met successfully?
The development plan-led process works logically. We do not want planning policies that are honoured only in the breach, which is a particular issue in the green belt.
But what if the reformed planning system gives us a situation that none of us wants and which is similar to the current situation, in which development plans are out of date, consultation is poor in some areas and where people feel that they do not have any purchase on the development plan in their area? That would be an inhibitor to successful review and implementation of the green-belt policy.
If we took the view that a development plan planning system was not working, we would have to address that—unless somebody could convince us that having a development plan-led system was the wrong policy approach. However, there is consensus about this, if about nothing else: knowing, planning, preparing and evidencing is the best way to manage change. Although we do not want to envisage a situation X number of years down the line that is the same as now, we would hope that there would be triggers much earlier on to show us that there was potential for that to happen. We would then have to explore why it was happening.
I am just concerned that the successful application of one policy depends on the wider system working as it is intended to.
I made the point earlier that we recognise that, as John Home Robertson said, we do not want to find ourselves running counter to planning policies for rural development or to the Scottish Executive economic strategy for both rural and urban Scotland. We have made a commitment to look at that, to reflect on what people have said about it more generally and to see how those concerns that we might be closing down opportunities for rural diversification and the economy can be addressed. I give members an assurance about that.
Thank you.
Before Christmas, we took evidence from community organisations. How can community and amenity groups be effectively and meaningfully involved in green-belt boundary reviews?
I will ask for more details to be provided on this matter, but I can say that the proposals in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill for community engagement in the development plan process will be central. People have to be engaged early on and, indeed, feel that such engagement is worth their while. Of course, any discussion about the location of green belts should involve local communities.
Obviously, the current system allows people to get involved in development planning. However, that is where discussions about green-belt boundaries should take place. Hopefully, with this planning reform, such opportunities will increase and be more effective.
Have community groups been consulted on how they might become involved? Indeed, have they been asked what the green belt means to them? At our meeting in December, Deryck Irving of Greenspace Scotland said that his organisation was working in a number of areas to identify people's aspirations for the green spaces around them and to find out what needs should be addressed. Has the Scottish Executive engaged with groups in such a way?
As I said in response to the convener's initial questions on community engagement, during the review we engaged with the groups that sat on the review group and with other organisations.
I cannot quite put my finger on the specific evidence at the moment but, at the meeting before Christmas, we heard concerns from community group representatives that having a 20-year review period might be difficult. After all, communities can change in that time. I realise that you have answered a couple of questions on this matter already, but who has been consulted on the length of that review period?
Well, that is the problem with long-term planning and with taking a more strategic, longer-term view. However, I believe that that could be tempered by the fact that the development plan has to be reviewed every five years.
That concludes the committee's questions. We will reflect on the points that have been discussed later in the meeting and will decide what action, if any, we will take to provide some helpful advice on green-belt policy.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Item in Private