Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Communities Committee,

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 24, 2006


Contents


Mineral Working (Draft Scottish Planning Policy 4)

The Convener:

Agenda item 2 concerns the draft Scottish planning policy 4 on mineral working. When the committee considered the draft SPP at its meeting on 8 March, we agreed to write to the Scottish Executive to ask how it intended to address a number of points that had been raised in the consultation and to provide clarification on the issues of noise, land banks, secondary and recycled aggregates and buffer zones. The response from the Deputy Minister for Communities includes detailed information on all the points that the committee raised. The minister's covering letter also advises that the final SPP will not be published unless the committee is content that the Executive's response addresses the issues that the committee raised.

Do members have continuing concerns about the SPP or are they content with the minister's reply?

Euan Robson:

It is helpful to have the correspondence from the minister. I appreciate the fact that she has taken on board the points about noise, but in annex I, on secondary and recycled aggregates, there seems to be no impetus towards extending their use. Rather, it states the current position, which is fair and fine. The vast bulk of the information is helpful and useful and proceeds in the right direction but, if we are to respond, we may want to ask whether the Executive could give further consideration to the issue of secondary and recycled aggregates, to see whether more could be recycled. It could set informal targets and hold discussions with the construction industry, for example. That would help to prevent much waste from simply going to landfill. We could comment briefly along those lines.

I presume that Euan Robson would not want our response to hold up publication of the SPP.

Euan Robson:

In no respect. However, annex I states that

"local authorities are now specifying a 10% contribution from recycled materials",

which seems rather modest. The Executive could give thought to increasing that contribution a little and encouraging more recycling. If the material is not recycled, it goes predominantly to landfill. The aim is not to put a burden on industry, because we would proceed with consultation, but this is an area in which there could be increased recycling.

Does John Home Robertson want to comment?

John Home Robertson:

I would like to make a connected point—you should not have woken me up, convener. On occasion, it has been suggested to me that the regulatory system discourages recycling, because people are frightened of using recycled aggregates on the ground that they will be in breach of environmental regulations. Surely the objective should be to encourage as much reuse of such material as possible.

Euan Robson:

That is what we want to say to the Executive. You are right to make the point that there is an obstacle on the regulatory side. There are questions about how the content of some material can be guaranteed. The issue would be part of an on-going discussion between the Executive and the construction industry. I think that I have made the point sufficiently.

Do members agree to reply to the minister that we are content with her response but would like the issue of secondary and recycled aggregates, which is discussed in annex I, to be pursued?

Members indicated agreement.