Communities Committee, 18 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Official Report 365KB pdf

---

Green Belts (Draft Scottish Planning Policy 21)

Item 5 concerns draft Scottish planning policy 21 on green belts. The committee has heard a considerable amount of evidence. I invite members to comment on any of the evidence that we heard at our meeting in December or on the minister's evidence today and to indicate whether they are inclined to take further action on draft SPP 21.

There were one or two points that either the Executive officials or the minister agreed to reflect on, such as the point about the inner and outer boundaries of green belts. I wonder whether we need to formalise that or just leave it as it stands.

I was going to suggest that we write to the minister about a number of points in the light of the evidence taken. The clerks helpfully kept a note of the points that members raised. It might be useful if we go through that list and ensure that everything is there. If members have points that they do not think have been covered, they can raise them. The point that John Home Robertson has just raised was one of the points that the clerks noted.

My first point was about whether a planning advice note should be issued on reviewing boundaries or whether we need more detail in the SPP. The conflicting evidence that we received from some planners who attended our meeting on 21 December was mentioned.

The policy needs clarity on the inner boundary issue, to build on the minister's explanation today.

A cross-reference to other guidance might be required. We can welcome the minister's commitment to consider that and to ensure that rural development and diversification are included in the guidance.

Members said that the outer boundary should not be drawn too tightly and asked the minister for clarity on that. She explained the situation quite well, but what she said is not what we thought when we received the policy, so perhaps the Executive needs to reflect on whether that can be better clarified in writing.

Christine Grahame requested more information and statistics on brownfield land.

And separate figures on contaminated land.

I am not sure what that would achieve in relation to the planning policy or whether those figures need to be included. I would have thought that it would be better to ask the minister to reflect on the need for a policy commitment that brownfield land should be used as a priority, before the use of greenfield land is considered.

I agree with that, but that is a matter of policy; the other point is a matter of fact. The matter of fact was not known. Throughout Scotland, we do not know for each local authority how much brownfield land is available but is not being used and how much is contaminated. I do not remember her actual words, but the minister gave an undertaking to provide the information as soon as reasonably possible. That followed a question that I was allocated about the policy commitment to consider more use of brownfield sites before encroaching on the green belt. As a result, we require to know how much land is sitting there. Perhaps more powers are required—I do not know—to ensure that developers use brownfield sites before other land. That might not be a question for the guidance.

I understand that every local authority knows how much contaminated and brownfield land is in its area and has identified the sites.

Patrick Harvie is mumbling that authorities do not necessarily know about contaminated land.

I am not sure that local authorities do not know where contaminated land is within their boundaries. However, the minister has made a commitment to give us the information.

May I return to the question?

I am not sure whether we need the information to be able to make recommendations. The two issues are not connected.

The question was whether clearer guidance was needed on the balance involved in the redevelopment of existing developments or brownfield land in a green belt. We should consider how we can know whether such redevelopment is happening. How can people in the local area know that if they do not know how much brownfield land is not being developed? How can we ensure that balance? How will ministers consider encroachment on a green belt if they do not know what brownfield land the party that proposes to encroach is not using? That is a long-winded way of putting the issue.

The information that is being pursued in no way relates to the recommendations that we will make to the minister on SPP 21. We can legitimately request the information, and at some point we can question the minister about whether local authorities are being effective in achieving such redevelopment, but our considerations of SPP 21 are not contingent on having that information. The two matters are related, but they do not depend on each other. In the letter that we write to the minister, we might mention the committee's desire that local authorities should consider and prefer the use of brownfield land over other land.

Separately, we will be given the audit of land.

Yes. The proposal does not mean that we will not receive the information, which will be pursued.

That is fine.

I hope that the committee welcomes the fact that the Executive has said that it will provide us with more information on how and whom it has consulted, with particular reference to equality groups. I hope that it also welcomes the commitment to consider the lists of appropriate uses of green belts.

Do members have points that have not been covered?

No, because it is 5 past 1.

With the committee's agreement, all those points will be covered in a letter, which will be distributed by e-mail to all committee members for their approval.

That concludes our session in public.

Meeting continued in private until 13:07.