Petitions
Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit (PE949)
The third item on the agenda is PE949, from James Duncan, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the role of the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit in relation to the planning process for public works, such as sewage plants, and to ensure greater community involvement at the appeals stage.
As members are aware, the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill aims to promote greater public involvement in the planning system. The bill proposes a number of changes to the appeals process, but it does not make provision for public involvement at the appeals stage. The committee discussed the proposal for a third-party right of appeal extensively during its stage 1 consideration of the bill.
The committee is invited to consider whether it is content that the issues that have been raised about the appeals process and public involvement in the planning system have been considered in the course of its stage 1 scrutiny of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill and are likely to be debated further at stage 2.
We can be fairly confident that at stage 2 we will discuss community involvement, especially in relation to the appeals stage. However, I wonder whether there is scope for us to communicate with the Executive about the operation of the inquiry reporters unit more generally. We touched on that matter at stage 1, but it was not a major focus.
I am sure that the Executive has carried out internal work on how the inquiry reporters unit should operate, given the forthcoming reforms to the planning system. Perhaps we could ask for the results of that work to be published or released in a format that would be helpful to the petitioner.
We went into the issues in great detail during our evidence taking in preparation for our stage 1 report on the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. As Patrick Harvie rightly said, the issues will arise in discussions at stage 2 and probably stage 3. I suggest that we write to the petitioner to advise him of our work—he may want to read some of the evidence that the committee took on the matter. We do not need to take any further action, as we have dealt with the specific points that are raised.
Obviously, the issue of a community right of appeal will be dealt with at stages 2 and 3. However, I support Patrick Harvie's comments about the SEIRU—we did not dig deeply into that.
Representatives of the SEIRU gave pretty extensive evidence to the committee.
I do not recall that evidence being reflected deeply in our report, although that is partly my fault as a member of the committee. Patrick Harvie made an interesting point.
To clarify, I by no means intended to suggest that we neglected the issue of the SEIRU. Indeed, we had discussions with representatives of the unit. However, the weight of other material in the bill on which we had to focus meant that the issue did not really come up when we spoke to the Deputy Minister for Communities. We have not really reflected on the issue to a great extent. I simply wonder whether it is worth communicating to the Executive some of the issues that arose during the session with the SEIRU, as we did not discuss them with the minister.
The committee had an opportunity to pursue the matter with the minister. My view is that the next relevant point for us to pursue the issue is at stage 2, when we have the right to lodge amendments. That is the most appropriate way of dealing with the matter. I am not sure what the benefit would be of writing to the minister to ask for further information that the committee would not reflect on. The committee will reflect on the stage 2 amendments. Every one of us has a right to lodge amendments to the bill.
When the word "sewage" is mentioned, I feel that I must declare an interest, as a former Scottish Water employee.
It is obvious that the issues will arise during stage 2. It is vital that we have a full, frank and wide consultation with everyone who is affected so that they have the opportunity to have their say.
During stage 2, we will pursue all the issues that we want to pursue and have a proper and thorough debate on them. I hope that the petitioner will be able to read the Official Report of our considerations. It might be helpful if we wrote to the petitioner to point out where he can find the evidence that the SEIRU gave to the committee. Are members content to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of the petition. We will take no further specific action on it.
School Buildings Strategy (PE957)
The fourth agenda item is consideration of petition PE957, by Phyllis French, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its strategy document "Building our Future: Scotland's School Estate" to ensure that new schools are built in a safe and secure environment and not, for example, on functional flood plains. "Building our Future" sets out the Scottish Executive's objectives to raise and maintain the quality of the school estate throughout Scotland, while focusing on policy outcomes and best practice rather than specific planning issues.
Concerns about the building of schools on flood plains appear to be addressed by the guidance in Scottish planning policy 7, which says:
"the areas of land where water flows in times of flood … should be safeguarded from further development".
The Executive has indicated that it will lodge amendments to the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, to require local authority applications to follow the standard planning application process.
I invite members to consider whether the issues raised in the petition on developments in which local authorities have an interest should be taken into account in our consideration of amendments to the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. We should also consider whether there would be merit in referring the issues that relate to "Building Our Future: Scotland's School Estate" to the Education Committee, given that they are related to planning, or whether no further action should be taken on the petition. We have been joined by Alex Neil.
I apologise for not giving earlier notice of my intention to attend the meeting. I did not realise until after leaving another meeting this morning that the petition would be considered today. Thank you for allowing me to attend.
The petition raises general policy issues but emerged from what happened with the planning application for the new Uddingston grammar school. The school is being relocated to a functional flood plain. The process has thrown up a range of issues to do with planning law and education policy.
On planning law, for example, because the local authority was the applicant, the planning application was referred to the Minister for Communities. However, the powers of that minister to revoke or not accept the application, or to refer it to the reporter, are limited and leave little scope for him to do anything, unless something has gone wrong with the process. There is no reference in the minister's powers to the specific requirements that are laid out in the Scottish Executive Education Department's policy document on the school estate strategy—[Interruption.]
Mr Neil, is your mobile phone switched on? Something is interfering with the sound.
I apologise, I thought that I had switched it off. Today is full of apologies.
According to the people who are opposed to the Uddingston grammar school application, particularly because of the flood-plain issue but also on many other grounds, it has come to light that the planning committee was misinformed on a number of aspects. Indeed, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency agree with the opponents of the application that the verbal advice that was given during the planning committee meeting was misleading and misinformed councillors. However, the minute refers only to decisions that were taken and does not include the verbal advice. As a result, there is no proof that the committee was misled.
The petition raises a number of issues. First, there is a potential conflict of interest because the local authority, which had already signed the agreement on the public-private partnership for the school, was also the planning authority. There is evidence that people were saying that the application would go through before the meeting took place. Other issues are: the procedure in the planning meeting; the powers of the Minister for Communities to revoke the application; and the relationship between planning law and education policy.
I am here to try to persuade the committee, first, to consider the issue during stage 2 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill—I will lodge amendments to address what is a serious issue—and secondly, to refer the petition to the Education Committee, because it throws up a number of issues about the relationship between planning law and education policy.
Thank you, convener. I apologise again—on both counts.
Well, at least you were gracious enough to apologise.
Yes, he does it with such charm. I must learn some of his tricks.
You do not have a hope. [Laughter.]
I have a great deal of sympathy with the petition as similar issues have arisen over the relocation of Kingsland primary school in Peebles. Indeed, some of the issues that are thrown up by the petition are identical. In Peebles, we are dealing with similar planning issues about the site's suitability—it is not on a flood plain but on a slope—and similar issues of access, because the proposed site is on the edge of town. On the educational aspects, Scottish Borders Council has already taken a decision so, again, there is a cross-cutting element to the issue.
Another identifiable similarity is the existence of a conflict of interests, because the land on which Scottish Borders Council proposes to relocate Kingsland primary school is common-good land, which is in the trusteeship of councillors. The councillors, as the planning authority, are making a decision, as it were, to sell the land—it will be made available under a long lease—to themselves. There are a number of similarities.
Obviously, we can deal with the conflict-of-interest issue at stage 2 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, but the petition addresses issues that cut across both education and planning. For instance, the provision of a safe school environment is a matter for education policy and planning policy, which both deal with the issue in different ways. I support the idea that we should deal with the issues through the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill and that we should remit the petition to the Education Committee, so that it can consider the issues. I do not believe that the two aspects are separate.
Is the committee content to refer the petition to the Education Committee, which can consider the education aspects of the petition, and to reflect on the planning aspects in our consideration of the amendments that the Executive will lodge at stage 2 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of petition PE957.
Thank you, convener.
I thank Mr Neil for his attendance.