Communities Committee, 18 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Official Report 365KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Planning Procedures (Playing Field Land) (PE813)<br />Recreation Open Space <br />(Provision and Planning Regulations) (PE771)

---

Planning System (Recreational Spaces) (PE821)

The fourth agenda item relates to new petitions. The Public Petitions Committee has referred three petitions to the Communities Committee for its consideration. The first is petition PE813, by Ronnie MacNicol, on behalf of Laighdykes residents group, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review existing planning procedures and guidance to ensure that they are sufficient to prevent local authorities from using playing field land for development.

The second is petition PE771, by Olena Stewart, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider whether there is sufficient guidance for local authorities to safeguard the provision of playing fields and open space for recreation and to establish whether additional legislation is required to cover conflicts of interest in local authorities on planning matters in relation to playing fields.

The final petition is PE821, by Sheena Stark, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that all planning applications for planning consent to change the use of recreational spaces are routinely sent to the appropriate minister for consideration.

The paper on the petitions that the clerks have prepared and that was provided to members prior to the meeting outlines some of the points that are raised in the petitions or have been raised in correspondence with the Public Petitions Committee. It is proposed that any planning-related issues should be included in our consideration of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. Do members have any comments?

It would be useful to have a paper on the various issues in the bill that the petitions raise. I have forgotten some of them, but there are a few. However, the first two petitions—PE813 and PE771—relate at least as much to guidance as they do to legislation. I wonder whether we can make an explicit commitment. We have already said that we will consider as many of the upcoming SPPs as we can. Can we make a commitment to do that for SPP 11 and to let the petitioners know the date of the evidence session on it in advance?

I support that. The new Scottish planning policy will be published this year, and it deserves attention on its own merits. The bill does not prevent us from dealing with the use of playing field land for development purposes, which is one of those issues that, I am sure, many of us come across in our constituencies. There have been encroachments on playing fields.

School gyms are a completely different issue, because the public at large have access to open spaces and playing fields but do not necessarily have access to schools' internal recreational facilities. The public may have even less access under certain projects or may have to pay for access. I have concerns about such issues, and I would like the committee to be able to deal with them and to give them a fair airing in considering the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill.

My first experience of the question of access to playing fields was during the summer holidays at a primary school in Nairn. A local councillor made a planning application to build on the school playing field. There was an absolute outcry from parents. I am not sure that there is an exact provision in the bill that would allow us to examine the issue, but I agree with my colleagues that it merits further examination. I will be scrutinising the bill to see whether there is an appropriate place where it could be addressed.

I do not disagree with the suggestion in the briefing paper that we should deal with this issue as we have agreed to deal with other planning topics in the past. However, a balance must be struck. Sportscotland and the Scottish Executive have formed a policy under which local authorities can operate. If there are planning proposals that include playing fields, my local authority in North Lanarkshire adheres very tightly to the policy, and alternatives to the playing fields have to be identified.

I had a negative experience on the other side when the important regeneration of houses in poor condition was held up for a considerable time so that the need to provide another playing field could be accommodated. It is right that we examine the issue further, but the balance is not all on one side.

It is important that we recognise that there are two aspects to the issue. It was no one's intention to say that we would not consider the planning policy when it comes. We do not have it at the moment, and until the Executive has drawn up the guidance and put it out for public consultation, we cannot do anything about it. However, the guidance will come to the committee for consideration and it will be for us to decide whether we want to deliberate on it. We will bear in mind the comments of Christine Grahame and Patrick Harvie, since they believe that these issues are important ones that we should consider.

How the petitioners' concerns might be dealt with in the bill may not be obvious. We may have an opportunity to consider their concerns as part of our deliberations on the bill, and we should make a commitment to do that.

I appreciate what you say and agree with your sentiments, except in relation to PE821. It specifically says that any planning application on a playing field should be sent routinely to Scottish ministers. I am sorry, but I do not agree with that one iota, as it would go completely over the head of local democracy. Would it not be sensible to take PE821 off the agenda? I reject the sentiments in that petition. We should inform the Public Petitions Committee that we are not minded to progress that particular petition. Frankly, it would be impossible to do what the petition calls for.

That may well be the case and I may agree with you, but we do not need to take a view on it now. I would prefer to discuss the issues in all the petitions and, if necessary, to take evidence on the minister's views. We should not just make a unilateral decision on PE821. I ask the convener to try to get a timetable from the Executive about when it will consult on the new SPP. We can simply tell the petitioners that we will consider the petitions when the new guidance is published. That may deal with Euan Robson's point.

The motivation for petition PE821 is not a desire to undermine local democracy but concern that the current system does not work. Most of us would agree that the current system does not work in many circumstances, which is why we are considering a planning reform bill: the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. We should not automatically support PE821, but we should say to the petitioners that we are considering a reformed planning system and we want to ensure that the issues that motivated PE821 are addressed in our consideration of the bill. I am against simply knocking back PE821. We should take on board the reasons why people have such concerns.

I agree with Euan Robson. I think that PE821 is over the top, although there probably should be a way of ensuring that local authorities take due account of the need to safeguard existing playing fields and, more important, create new playing fields. That aspect should be included in the new planning bill. When housing areas are being developed, they should incorporate space for children and, indeed, adults to play.

I was just asking Steve Farrell, the clerk, for clarification on timetables. I understand that the Executive has made public its intention to consult on the policy in the spring of this year.

That is what we have in our paper.

I am not sure that we will get any further detail from the Executive at this point, and I do not think that it is for the committee to write off or support the merits of any of the petitions at this stage. We should say to the petitioners that, for us, the issues in all the petitions are closed, but the committee will consider the general issues that have been raised, not the specifics of the cases, when we consider the Executive's planning policy, as we have highlighted. Are members happy with that?

Assuming that we have an evidence-taking session, I take it that we will let the petitioners know the date of it.

Yes. We can make a note to ensure that the petitioners know when the committee will consider the matter. Are the committee agreed on my suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

That ends our consideration of all three petitions.