Cumbernauld Town Centre
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3848, in the name of Margaret Mitchell, on Cumbernauld town centre. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that, in the Channel 4 programme, "Demolition", broadcast in December 2005, the public nominated and voted for Cumbernauld Town Shopping Centre as the most hated building in Britain; acknowledges that Cumbernauld is in a great location; commends the residents of Cumbernauld for maintaining a sense of pride in their town despite the problems, which have existed for many years, associated with design and the lack of an identifiable town centre; congratulates Channel 4 for having produced this excellent piece of broadcast journalism which, firstly, ensured that these problems have been the subject of a national awareness-raising exercise and, secondly, which provided practical solutions to these problems; recognises that quality of life is the core issue; expresses concern that North Lanarkshire Council intends to proceed with design plans for the town shopping centre which will, in the view of those who took part in the programme, merely compound the problems which already exist; believes that the Scottish Executive should encourage North Lanarkshire Council to take on board the suggestions made in the programme to regenerate Cumbernauld by creating an identifiable town centre starting at St Mungo's Church and continuing to tree-lined boulevards with shop fronts facing widened pavements where bistro and alfresco activities could be provided, and considers that North Lanarkshire Council should initiate a consultation with the residents of Cumbernauld on these proposals.
It is important to set today's debate in context. Members' business debates are, I believe, one of the Scottish Parliament's successes. They enable members to bring a constituency issue to the forefront of public opinion; they are a superb mechanism for raising awareness of an issue; and the discussion is generally conducted in a positive manner with the consensual support of members, irrespective of their political differences, and with all members being committed to moving forward. I hope that today's debate will be conducted in that spirit.
I cannot be other than disappointed, therefore, that, rather than focus on the issue that the motion addresses, Donald Gorrie has lodged a highly politicised counter-motion that appears to be more about political point scoring. The points that his motion raises can be made in the debate; however, if something worth while is to be achieved today, we must put political differences aside and focus on Cumbernauld's future.
The "Demolition" programme, which was shown on Channel 4, brought the problems that are associated with Cumbernauld into the spotlight. That came on top of the town's shopping centre receiving the plook on the plinth award from the architects' magazine Prospect for the second time.
Clearly, there is a design problem with the existing shopping centre, given that it was voted the most hated building in Britain in the "Demolition" programme. That design problem, coupled with the absence of an identifiable town centre with open social spaces where residents can spend time, is affecting the key players' ability to attract big, popular and prestigious retailers of the kind that are necessary to encourage people to travel to Cumbernauld and spend time there. The proposed new Antonine centre is a facelift development that, in itself, will not address the current problems or provide the revitalised centre that everyone hopes to achieve.
The Antonine centre first gained planning permission in 2003 and was due to open in 2004. It has been beset by problems principally because it has failed to attract—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just finish my point. The centre has failed to attract the prestigious retailers that would make the town centre and the existing shops sustainable and viable.
I am dismayed that Margaret Mitchell is talking down the Antonine centre proposals. Does she know when the first proposals were made and when discussions started about the centre?
It was quite some time ago, and the centre got planning permission only in 2004. That is the point. Despite the fact that the centre has been the cards for so long, it has been beset with problems because of the failure to attract outlets that would make the centre viable.
We need to look at the current problems and build on the positive aspects of Cumbernauld. The town already has a huge catchment area of potential shoppers. With a population of 50,000, it is the largest settlement in North Lanarkshire and is situated in an ideal location to attract the economic regeneration that is required to restore the sense of civic pride that its residents, many of whom were pioneers of the new town development, still have in their town.
The point was made clear in a letter that I received from a constituent who voices the feelings of so many of the people in Cumbernauld:
"I have been a Cumbernauld resident for almost forty years, having moved here when not long married, raising my family in the town.
Recently I walked from Carbrain Road up the ramp towards the town centre, passing the commemorative sculpture on the way. I was overwhelmed by a sudden feeling of sadness. Why?? Because I remembered being in that spot in 1967 waiting with my two year old son for the arrival of Princess Margaret to open the new town centre.
I remembered the feelings of hope for the future of our new town. We were supposed to be the pioneers of a new concept in town planning and had been encouraged to leave our comfortable home in Glasgow's west end where we were visited and vetted to ensure that we were suitable. We arrived in Abronhill in 1966 and put up with inconveniences such as lack of shops, few bus links etc as all were promised in time when our wonderful new shopping centre was built …
I believe that the opportunity has been missed for a good shopping mall here in Cumbernauld which would have attracted people from surrounding towns in the central area. People are now accustomed to travelling to Falkirk, Stirling, East Kilbride, The Forge, Braehead etc and even the local population wont stay in the town for the poor quality"—
of shopping. The letter continues:
"Years ago I know that people did travel to the town to visit Woolco and the opportunity to build on this was missed. My children have now all left the town, I am in my sixties and rarely spend any time in the depressing centre."
My constituent finishes by saying that she still has a feeling of civic pride. She suggests that one thing that could be done is to relocate the town centre and make a square with cafes and alfresco areas or, as the motion and the "Demolition" programme suggest, make the existing shops face the front and create a tree-lined boulevard and pavement space where people could spend time.
I believe that, if there is the political will, the fact that the centre is in the hands of private developers will not matter. That was not the case in Hamilton, when the then leader of Hamilton District Council, Tom McCabe, refused to take no for an answer and the whole centre was revamped. The same could be true for Cumbernauld. All that is required is political will and for the key players to get round the table and to try with one voice to do what the people in Cumbernauld are clearly calling out for—the creation of an identifiable town centre where people can spend time. Anything that the minister can do to aid that process and those talks would be much appreciated.
It is a good thing that we are debating the issue and I am happy that Margaret Mitchell has raised it. She is obviously unhappy about the fact that I lodged an amendment, which we are obviously not debating, but which set out some history. The problem with Cumbernauld is the way the Cumbernauld Development Corporation was wound up and made to sell off bits of the centre to different private developers, which inhibited any coherent attempt to sort out the problems, many of which were caused by a Conservative Government.
The council should initiate a consultation of the residents of Cumbernauld, and the owners of the town centre should as a matter of urgency engage in meaningful discussions on the centre's future. Three parties are involved. First, and most important, there are the residents of Cumbernauld. Secondly, there is the council which, without my getting political, has a slightly questionable record in its dealings in respect of Cumbernauld. I think that Cumbernauld was better dealt with under the former district council. Thirdly, there are the people who own the site and the buildings. Those people must all get together. We must ensure that the Cumbernauld people have their say and can put forward positive proposals for how to sort out the town centre.
There are a lot of good aspects to Cumbernauld. There is the old village, which is attractive and has the somewhat underused but very fine Cumbernauld House. The town also has a successful theatre and many other things going for it, but the shopping centre has been a problem because of the difficulty of sorting everything out.
As a contribution to the discussion, some Cumbernauld people have put to me the idea that a public area could be developed between the college, the medical centre, the new town hall and the community centre, between Tryst Road and North Carbrain Road. Some of those buildings have space around them in which public space could be developed. The view that has been put to me is that there is a great lack of public space in Cumbernauld because areas are owned by private corporations. At a very trivial level, I have suffered because of that, by being driven off a car park where I was trying to electioneer. It is privately owned land, so I was sent away in disgrace. Open public space is what is needed, and Margaret Mitchell made some sensible points about that. It is vital to involve the people of Cumbernauld with the council and the owners of the land so that they can sort out the issue and restore the town, give it a really good centre and allow it to continue as the good town that it is.
Cumbernauld new town gained fame in the 1970s. It was considered to be an ideal place to live, a modern and safe environment in which to raise a family, and a place where almost all houses offered residents a piece of green space to claim as their own. It was a place where there would be jobs to suit everyone, available on their doorsteps, so people moved to the town in a pioneering spirit. They wanted that modern town to work for them and for their children. The reputation of the town spread, and visitors from all over the world came in numbers to see that modern method of town planning.
Architects, town planners, designers and students picked over every aspect of the plan and the buildings. We were presented with a number of awards. The town centre, which featured the first indoor shopping mall in the United Kingdom, was seen as a triumph of design. We were famous. "Gregory's Girl" put us on the big screen, and "What's it called?"—
"Cumbernauld!"
—was on everyone's lips. That was not rehearsed.
We still have a great community. Groups in the town offer something for every taste and there is support for almost every need. Housing is attractive and desirable and our population continues to grow. There are good-quality schools and high employment levels, but something is wrong: we do not have a shopping centre that meets the needs of the town. The plan went off the rails and for a long time we have been struggling to get it back on the tracks. I use the phrase "off the rails" because many of the pioneers who came out to Cumbernauld were railway workers from Springburn.
What went wrong? What derailed us? It is clear to many people who live and work in Cumbernauld that the problems began when the town centre was sold to a private company by Cumbernauld Development Corporation. I am sorry if Donald Gorrie offended Margaret Mitchell, but facts are chiels that winna ding. The development corporation did not want to sell for a very good reason, which was that the centre was not finished. In the words of a former Cumbernauld Development Corporation employee,
"the Corporation kicked up hell"
with the then Scottish Office officials and ministers. However, I am told that their protests fell on deaf ears. The Tory Government at the time had a vigorous policy and it encouraged—indeed, directed—the development corporation to sell off its assets.
What advantage is to be gained from going over the past? Surely the benefit of the debate is that it enables us to move forward and see what can be done now. We are where we are.
The advantage of going over the past is that we can learn from our history. If Margaret Mitchell was at the presentation that was given earlier in the week in Parliament by history teachers, she will know that we can all learn from history.
The development corporation protested because the town centre was not finished; it knew that it would be extremely difficult to complete the envisaged centre when control of the heart of our town had been sold. With that little but important piece of historical knowledge, I found myself looking at Margaret Mitchell's motion with disbelief. The Tories were the ones who allowed control of our town centre to be sold and to be lost to the people of our area.
We, as a town, have unfortunately now received national attention for all the wrong reasons, but the television programme highlighted the many successes in our town as well as the negatives. If the publicity helps in the long run, that interest is welcome.
What is happening in Cumbernauld now is important. Work on the Antonine centre has at last begun. The Antonine centre will also provide civic spaces in the area to which Donald Gorrie referred. Because of difficulties in the planning process, it has taken six years to reach the point at which the centre is starting to be built. I am pleased that representatives of the community—people who have lived and worked in the town for a long time—now meet the council regularly to talk about and plan for the future.
Cumbernauld is a unique town in many ways. We reflect the architecture of our time, just as other Scottish towns do theirs. We have the opportunity to learn from our history and to complete a centre that is—as the original plans envisaged—a utopia. Solutions will be designed and found locally, with the involvement of local people. It is not for the Scottish Parliament or for North Lanarkshire Council to tell the people what should happen; it is for us to work with them, and I will continue to work with them in any way that I can. When I come to the deputy minister's door looking for financial assistance, I hope that that door will be open.
I congratulate Margaret Mitchell on securing the debate, despite the fact that I do not support the motion—although she told the Cumbernauld News & Kilsyth Chronicle otherwise.
Our new towns, which were developed on the lines of Ebenezer Howard's garden-city model, have had varying degrees of success in the development of their town centres. As Cathie Craigie pointed out, over recent years Cumbernauld town centre has collected a number of national awards—unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons. The present state of the town centre has become a festering sore. The problem was recognised some time ago, when the former CDC, having acknowledged the need to redevelop the town centre, appointed Arrowcroft consultants to produce redevelopment plans.
However, following the abolition of the CDC and local government reorganisation, the plans were ditched. North Lanarkshire Council decided not to go ahead with the plans, despite the CDC having set aside money before its abolition for the work to be carried out. To date, local representatives say that they do not know where the money disappeared to in North Lanarkshire Council's budgets.
Ministers should be aware that the local community has little faith that North Lanarkshire Council is truly committed to redeveloping Cumbernauld town centre as it should be developed. Ministers should also recognise that North Lanarkshire Council has produced substantial redevelopment plans for all the major shopping centres in its area, except—for some strange reason—for the shopping centre in Cumbernauld. The mindset in North Lanarkshire Council seems to be that Cumbernauld is at the periphery. Given the big development at Ravenscraig, which is to be welcomed, the suspicion is that the council's energies are being ploughed in that direction instead of towards areas such as Cumbernauld.
Some progress has been made in recent years, in particular the Tesco and Asda developments. However, some argue that those developments have made it more difficult to sustain businesses in Cumbernauld town centre, as people who shop in Tesco and Asda do not need to go into the town centre. Cathie Craigie mentioned the Antonine centre, which also represents progress. However, that it is largely a retail outlet and its development raises questions about the long-term future of the mega centre. Cumbernauld town centre needs more than just a shopping centre; it needs a true town centre. Over the past nine years, North Lanarkshire Council has failed to grasp that that is what many local residents want.
As Margaret Mitchell rightly said, we need to move forward. It is wrong to say that blame can be apportioned to one group or another for how the issue has or has not been taken forward. That said, Cumbernauld town centre needs a substantial redevelopment plan, such as other town centres in the North Lanarkshire area have had. An example of the good practice that North Lanarkshire Council could achieve is Falkirk Council's recent redevelopment of Stenhousemuir and Denny shopping centres. Falkirk Council brought in a number of developers and asked them to produce a range of plans. It then consulted the local communities on what they wanted in their town centres, after which the council asked developers to finalise their plans, working with the local communities. Finally, the council invested in developing the town centres.
One of the key things that North Lanarkshire Council has failed to do is to engage the local community in Cumbernauld in a wide consultation process in order to achieve that.
I accept that a community forum has been established and that that is a step in the right direction, but the council had to be dragged kicking and screaming even to get to that stage. North Lanarkshire Council has to realise that local residents should have a say in shaping their town centre. The use of the community forum is one step in that direction, but it is not sufficient in itself. The council needs to reach out to the wider community of Cumbernauld to identify exactly what people want in their town centre.
If that can be achieved in other local authority areas where councils are willing to work with local residents, I see no reason why North Lanarkshire Council cannot raise its game and start to do that in Cumbernauld. Ultimately, the people who live in Cumbernauld are those who should decide what is in their town centre. North Lanarkshire Council needs to wake up to that fact.
There is no doubt that the subject of the debate has led to passions running high in Cumbernauld. Not long ago, I attended a modern studies class at Greenfaulds high school and it was good that the children were enthused about the political issues surrounding the town centre. The provision of a decent town centre for Cumbernauld is long overdue.
I supported Donald Gorrie's amendment. No one should be condemned for supporting amendments to motions, even if they are motions for members' business debates. We are here because we agree with the concept of democracy. I agree that we should move on in a spirit of consensus. If we all agree that Cumbernauld needs and deserves a new town centre, we should work to achieve that. However, we must learn from history. Those people who have made mistakes need to accept responsibility for making them. All that we are asking for is acknowledgement that mistakes were made. The Tory Government made mistakes, as has Scotland's current Government. Cathie Craigie recognises the Executive's responsibility in that regard and seeks assistance from it. North Lanarkshire Council must accept its responsibility, too.
The e-mails and phone calls that I receive show that there has rarely been an issue that has united residents so much as the desire to have a town centre for Cumbernauld. It is right that that centre should not be just a shopping mall—we do not need an East Kilbride mark 2. Cumbernauld needs to develop a distinct character that meets the needs of the people who live there. They must have a space of their own that contains a diversity of shops, not just the big chains. They want space to be provided for small, individual shops that allow local traders to develop their businesses. That would have been easier if the CDC had not been compelled to sell off the town centre to private companies.
As someone who speaks to the residents and visits Cumbernauld town centre quite frequently, I know that it is dying on its feet and that it has an extremely depressing air about it. It is unfortunate that the bad reputation of the shopping centre sometimes leads to the whole town being tarred with the same brush. It is a testament to the resilience of Cumbernauld's residents that they do not allow that to drag them down. They are right to stand up for their town.
We have mentioned the private control of the town centre. That is where the responsibility of the present Government and of North Lanarkshire Council comes in. If the political will existed, we could correct that mistake by letting the council take the town centre back into public ownership. That would be the radical thing to do but, unfortunately, I do not think that that is likely to happen.
The current planning regulations have obviously been a problem in improving the town centre. I do not necessarily agree that the fact that a big Tesco and a big Asda have opened is a good thing, as it simply perpetuates the town's status as a car town. That is a common theme in new towns. Although the planning of new towns represented progress in many respects, they were developed as car towns and there is still a dearth of decent public transport links around them. The development of big stores just perpetuates that situation. We must move away from the predominance of big stores by encouraging the growth of smaller shops and smaller retail developments. People need to be able to live, work and socialise; it is not just a question of being able to go to the shops, as other members have said. The people of Cumbernauld must be consulted and their democratic will implemented; consultation alone is not enough.
I will conclude with a more general point. In such debates, there is always a temptation just to talk things up by saying, for example, that Cumbernauld or East Kilbride—the new town where I live—is great. New towns offer many advantages, but they are also the source of problems. As someone who lives in a new town, I think that one of the problems is that not enough attention has been paid to the development of character. In many cases, new towns are monotonous—their districts have no individuality. East Kilbride has the advantage of its village, with its tradition, history and diversity. In future planning, local authorities and Government will have the responsibility for giving new towns a bit more diversity and character.
The opportunity to debate town planning is very welcome. If we are to seek inspiration from anybody, we should seek it from the great Sir Patrick Geddes—a former resident of Edinburgh who was perhaps the father of town planning—and his ideas on how towns and cities should reflect our relationship with the environment, with space, and with trees, plants and flowers. If the design of future towns is based on Geddes's ideas, we may not make the mistakes that we made in the past. If we design our towns around people rather than around cars, and around people's aspirations rather than around the aspirations of big business, they will look very different.
I echo much of what Carolyn Leckie said. In fact, I subscribe to everything that she said—especially what she said about small shops. What do we like a town centre to look like? For most people in this chamber, a town centre would be somewhere with a nice restaurant, a cinema, local amenities, shops and businesses—and even lawyers—that we could drop in on during the day or at night. We should design our cities so that people can walk to most of the places that they want to go to. In some of our cities—if I may divert from Cumbernauld for a second, although this may apply to Cumbernauld too—small shops are being driven out of business by the incursion and ever-growing power of supermarkets.
A House of Commons committee has been investigating the problems of small shops and on 15 February it will publish its report. I hope soon to have the opportunity of drawing members' attention to the results of that investigation.
Forty per cent of people in Scotland do not drive a car. When we design city centres, we should think of the people who do not drive, we should think of children, and we should think of old people. They are also the people we should consult. The theme of consultation has run through this evening's debate. Children should be consulted on the design of schools as well as on the design of town centres.
I will finish by mentioning the passion for allowing big chain restaurants into city centres. The net result of that is to siphon off money from the local economy. Such restaurants do not provide a net gain. My figures are from the United States, but the figures here will not be any different. A chain restaurant may provide some employment in a small town, but it will import food and materials from outside, and 90 per cent of the profits will go furth of the town. Only 10 per cent of the profits will be recycled in the local economy. In other words, there is a net loss every time we allow one of these restaurants into a small town.
This has been a good debate. I am the convener of the cross-party group on architecture and the built environment and I would have been very happy to debate this subject for the next hour and a half. I thank Margaret Mitchell for securing the debate. It is one that should continue.
Although there are strong feelings on the issue, members have conveyed their views in a way that has allowed the debate to be challenging and interesting. I shall do my best to continue in that vein.
I did not see the Channel 4 programme that is referred to in Margaret Mitchell's motion and so cannot comment on its journalistic merits. On the upside, it is good that it has stimulated discussion and debate about places such as Cumbernauld town centre and the Parliament building, Scotland's other public building that has been nominated for demolition.
I am somewhat uneasy about such programmes, in which places are used to capture and describe a problem. As a consequence, those places come to be seen as being beyond saving. Decline and decay are images that are triggered in people's minds when they think of Cumbernauld; they think that it is a place that must be demolished. That is a reproach and an insult to the individuals and agencies in such communities who work hard to change them.
I am somewhat anxious when there is a sneering tone behind what is said. It may be helpful if some of the experts who sneer were to reflect on the fact that when the decisions on these town plans and buildings were made, they were made on the basis of professional advice, so although hindsight is an exact science, it should be remembered that planning decisions were made with the best intentions. Cumbernauld must be seen in that context.
Regarding Robin Harper's point about town planning, one feature that has emerged from the discussions on the planning bill is the potential for town planners to make significant changes. The Executive wants to reinvigorate the notion that town planning is a career in which people can make changes and differences.
Cathie Craigie said that she would be coming to my door looking for financial assistance for Cumbernauld. There is no change there—she spends a great deal of her time bending the ears of whichever minister she can get hold of on behalf of her constituents. The Executive has supported significant investment, not just in the shopping centre but in the town centre, in closed- circuit television and in housing developments.
The Scottish Executive places great emphasis on the quality of the built and natural environments and we believe that investment in good design and public spaces is a sound investment. It can help to transform both the perception and the reality of our neighbourhoods, towns and cities and it can help to create a sense of pride and identity. Equally, buildings that are poorly designed or poorly maintained can bring a place down or give it an undeserved reputation.
Cumbernauld has a great deal going for it. It is well connected to the rest of Scotland, it has a growing population, unemployment stands at just over 2 per cent and it has a good mix of housing. The picture I have of Cumbernauld is that it is a positive place. I remember that while I was a wee girl growing up in Anderston in Glasgow, one of my school pals got the chance to live in Cumbernauld. We got to go out in the train to see this wonderful, exotic, bright, open and green place with houses that had gardens and underfloor heating. For our generation, Cumbernauld was seen as a place of opportunity. We all understand why Cumbernauld wants that perception to remain.
It is not for the Executive to prescribe the form or content of particular developments, be they in Cumbernauld or anywhere else. Members will appreciate that, given my ministerial responsibilities for planning, I am unable to comment on specific proposals. However, the Executive sets the policy framework and provides advice, guidance and support to promote well-planned and well-designed places and buildings.
Planning policy recognises the importance of town centres. National planning policy guideline 8, on town centres and retail, which we are in the process of revising, sets out our commitment to the protection and enhancement of town centres. The aim of the policy is to sustain and enhance the vitality, viability and design of town centres, which must be about more than just providing a shopping mall. Current planning policy also discourages exclusive reliance on the private car.
The Executive's planning policy statement, "Designing Places", which was published in November 2001, also provides guidance for local authorities and others. It sets out the Executive's aspirations for design and the role of the planning system in delivering them. It is backed up by a series of design-based planning advice notes, which cover subjects such as open space, housing, road layouts and design statements. We also have in place a policy on architecture that acknowledges the value of good design in development and regeneration. A new statement, that takes account of the Cultural Commission's comments on strengthening the role of the existing policy, will be launched later in the year.
I acknowledge the importance of ensuring that those who live in the houses and who use the buildings are part of shaping the plans. Communities Scotland has accepted the importance of such involvement in developing its housing policy and in respect of new build. Such involvement is how we can make intelligent decisions about the kind of buildings that we create.
Well-designed towns and cities emerge because deliberate and careful design direction is given to urban growth, conservation and change. Last year, Scottish ministers established a new champion for good design in the built environment in our country in Architecture and Design Scotland. A key function of that new body is to engage with planning and procurement processes and to demand excellence in development at all levels and in all parts of the country. Architecture and Design Scotland takes a proactive role in promoting and advocating good design. Therefore, I encourage North Lanarkshire Council to consult Architecture and Design Scotland on its plans for the town centre of Cumbernauld.
I said earlier that I welcome, with certain caveats, the debate and discussion that the "Demolition" programme generated. I particularly welcome the fact that it is not just planners and architects who talk about places and buildings. It is important that communities such as Cumbernauld understand and influence planning decisions. Although the current planning system allows people to become involved in the process, there is a need to ensure that all communities can participate in the planning decisions that affect their lives.
That is why the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, which is currently progressing through the Parliament, will provide better opportunities for people to influence decisions in developing the planning process and in considering individual developments. In order to support the measures in the bill, the Executive will work with stakeholders to prepare a planning advice note on community engagement. The note will provide advice on the new requirements for inclusion, it will give practical guidance on the approaches to community engagement and it will highlight examples of best practice. There will also be an information campaign on the changes in the planning system to tell people how they can become involved.
Those steps to engage people in planning will complement the work that the Executive is doing to ensure that people have a voice in the regeneration of their areas. Communities Scotland, for example, is working with local authorities and others to implement national standards for community engagement. Through the community voices programme, it will provide £9 million over the next three years to give communities a real say in regeneration.
I am aware that North Lanarkshire Council organised a meeting with Cumbernauld community forum and the association of community councils in December to discuss the future of the town centre. The meeting was attended by the chief executive and other senior officials, which is a good sign that the council is taking the issue seriously. I understand that there have been meetings since then, including one today. I welcome that approach and encourage the council to continue working with the community on this important issue.
Of course we acknowledge the democratic accountability and authority of local councils, too. Democratic provision means that it is not for the centre to decide anything; there is an inner planning process. We have to recognise the key role of local authorities.
Is the minister aware that the chief executive and the head of the planning department in North Lanarkshire Council refused to meet seven councillors from Cumbernauld to discuss the town centre? They are happy to meet community groups, but they are not prepared to meet elected representatives. Does the minister condone the council's position?
I will not comment on something that I am not aware of. I was trying to make the point that any local authority has its own democratic authority that the Scottish Parliament must recognise.
We have heard interesting views on the importance of design in the future of Cumbernauld town centre. North Lanarkshire Council has acknowledged that changes to the town centre are required and it has proposed amendments to the Glasgow and Clyde valley structural plan that identify Cumbernauld town centre as a renewal priority. The council has also worked with others to deliver road and lighting improvements, environmental works and the refurbishment of the Tryst sports centre. Construction of the Antonine centre, which is a new retail development that will bring in an estimated 600 jobs and £50 million of investment, started last week. All that, coupled with investment and support from Communities Scotland and Scottish Enterprise Lanarkshire, will bring benefits to the town centre.
It is clear that we and others should take the design of places and buildings seriously, and I have outlined the policies that the Executive has in place to support that. I encourage North Lanarkshire Council and its partners to take account of the policies and to involve local people fully in the town's future. We want to think of Cumbernauld as I had always thought of it: a thriving place of great potential. I am sure that members and people in the Cumbernauld area will work extremely hard for the successful outcome of discussions so that we can have a revitalised town centre.
Will the minister take an intervention? It was just to make the point—
Sorry—the minister is finishing.
Has she finished completely?
Johann Lamont indicated agreement.
Since you have started you might as well finish, I suppose.
Does the minister accept that there is a problem with the absence of an identifiable town centre? Although all the news about the new centre is to be welcomed, it will not in itself solve all the problems without addressing the original one.
You should finish, minister.
I have said already that we take seriously the development of the town centre. We have invested in it and we recognise the importance of all the people involved coming together in the best interests of the people of Cumbernauld.
Meeting closed at 17:45.