Strategic Planning (Fife)
I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly.
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2404, in the name of Iain Smith, on strategic planning in Fife. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the strong opposition from Fife Council, residents and community councils in Fife to the proposals contained in the Scottish Executive's consultation document Review of Strategic Planning which would split Fife for strategic planning purposes between the cities of Dundee and Edinburgh; further notes that Fife Council is the only local authority area proposed to be split for strategic planning purposes; recognises that Fife Council shares boundaries with other major public sector agencies such as Scottish Enterprise Fife, Fife NHS Board and Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board which, together with its unique geography, make Fife ideally suited for strategic planning as a single unit, and therefore considers that the Scottish Executive should review its proposals in the light of the consultation and retain Fife as a single strategic planning area.
I thank members for the opportunity to hold the debate, particularly those who have stayed behind to participate.
No one should underestimate the importance of the planning system or the interest that it generates from individuals, community councils and local groups in constituencies such as North-East Fife. That area contains many of Scotland's outstanding historic and scenic features, including the ancient city of St Andrews, conservation villages such as Falkland and Ceres, the unique fishing villages of the East Neuk—which appear in members' calendars—coastal landscapes, the Lomond hills and the rural hinterland. Those features present challenges for our planning system. For example, we must balance the need to develop new tourist facilities with their environmental impact on the landscape and the traffic that they generate in towns and villages.
The existing structure and local plans provide an effective policy context in which to take planning decisions; without them, areas such as north-east Fife could become vulnerable to speculative planning pressures. For example, in recent years there has been a plethora of applications for new golf courses with hotel and leisure facilities around St Andrews. That new phenomenon was not identified in the existing structure and local plans, so the applications had to be determined on a first-come-first-served basis and not as part of the overall planning framework, taking account of the landscape, environment and traffic implications.
That example illustrates that strategic planning issues are not confined to the four main cities, as was suggested in the Executive's consultation paper, entitled "Review of Strategic Planning". Strategic planning issues can be equally important for smaller communities. The proposals in the review are based on the concept of the city region. On structure plans, the document states:
"We propose that the higher tier of plan should concentrate on genuinely strategic issues which cross the boundaries of council areas."
It goes on to state that
"we propose that strategic development plans be prepared only for the 4 largest cities and their hinterlands … We believe that only in city regions are there genuinely strategic planning issues which require to be addressed across local authority boundaries".
That approach is flawed in several respects: it does not recognise that strategic issues apply outwith city areas; it does not recognise that all local authorities are not the same—for example, compare Clackmannanshire Council with the Highland Council; it does not recognise that the absence of a strategic planning framework outwith city areas might affect the development potential in those areas and put more pressure on cities as a result; and it does not recognise that it might lead to planning policy vacuums of the type that I mentioned earlier, which can result in inappropriate development. Finally, it does not recognise the importance of the local element in development control plans, and ensuring that public confidence in the planning process is maintained.
I want to focus on the specific situation in Fife. Fife is a unique part of Scotland, bounded in the north by the Firth of Tay and in the south by the Firth of Forth. It has the considerable advantages of having a council, a health board, a local enterprise company, a tourist board and police and fire services sharing coterminous boundaries. There is no doubt that Fifers such as me share a common identity, and we are proud of our kingdom. There is therefore a geographic, political, administrative and community cohesiveness to Fife that enables effective and sensible community and land use planning.
Over the past few decades, Fife has experienced more than its fair share of problems, following the decline of the traditional industries—coal mining and shipbuilding in the south and west and agriculture and fishing in the north-east. Addressing those problems has required co-ordinated action by various public bodies in Fife—an effort that has been greatly assisted by the fact that they share the same boundaries. Strategic planning has also assisted that process by identifying environmental, transport and employment policies to encourage the types of development that Fife needs for economic recovery.
Although it is not perfect, the present system has served Fife well. It has been able to take account of the pressures that are caused by Fife's proximity to the cities of Edinburgh and Dundee—for example, by improving transport links and building new housing developments. The Executive's "Review of Strategic Planning" could sweep that system away. Under that review, Fife would no longer be a unified strategic planning area; instead, it would be split between the city areas of Dundee and Edinburgh.
As I travel to Edinburgh every day by train from my home in Ladybank, I am well aware of the importance of Edinburgh as a place of work for people from Fife. I also appreciate the fact that development in cities can have a huge impact on the hinterland. For example, the viability of local shops can be damaged when a new supermarket is opened. I appreciate as well that those of us who live in rural areas can benefit from the cultural and leisure facilities that are provided in cities.
There is therefore clearly a need to ensure effective co-operation between local authorities on issues of mutual interest such as transport, retail and industrial development and environmental impact. However, as Fife Council concludes in its response to the consultation paper:
"there are no demonstrable advantages for Fife in the proposals."
Indeed, there are a number of disadvantages. There are also practical problems: how, for instance, would we determine which parts of Fife were in the Edinburgh area and which were in the Dundee area? There are overlaps. Some areas might be excluded from the process altogether, which would leave Fife with a confused patchwork of planning policies.
The city area planning proposals would inevitably be focused primarily on the bridgehead areas, sucking in resources and ignoring the needs of large parts of Fife. In particular, the proposals would seriously undermine the effectiveness of community planning in Fife. Community planning cannot be divorced from land use planning. Where and how public services are provided—whether they be hospitals, schools, leisure facilities, housing, shops, public transport, business and industrial developments and so on—are crucial factors in community planning and are all linked with land use.
In Fife, there has been a massive rejection of the Executive's proposals, not only from Fife Council but from community councils and hundreds of individuals. Of the 315 responses to the Executive's consultation paper, more than 150 referred to Fife, virtually all of which were opposed to the plans. I have received nearly 200 letters from constituents objecting to the proposals, each of which I have forwarded to the minister. I have organised a petition that supports keeping Fife as a strategic planning area and urges the Scottish Parliament to reject proposals to split strategic planning for Fife between Dundee and Edinburgh. It has already been signed by more than 2,000 people. That demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue.
Clearly, some of the problem stems from the fear that there is a hidden agenda to break Fife up, a proposal that was overwhelmingly rejected in the 1970s. I accept that that is not the intention but, inevitably, there will be pressure for some of the services that are provided on a Fife-wide basis to be provided instead on the basis of the city areas, for example, those to do with economic development, tourism and health.
The consultation paper states that
"all development plans should take a long perspective (15 years minimum) and that they should be site specific for strategic land releases."
While I agree that strategic planning, by definition, should be long-term, I believe that it must respond quickly to changing circumstances and new pressures, such as the golf developments that I referred to. More important, however, there needs to be a sense of ownership of development plans if the communities that they cover are to retain faith in the planning process. The idea that a significant development site could be imposed on a community in Fife to meet the interests of Dundee or Edinburgh is not likely to preserve faith in the planning system, which is already seen as being too pro-developer and remote.
When I first wrote to the developer to raise my objections to the proposals in July, Lewis Macdonald, who was the relevant minister at the time, replied, stating:
"The consultation exercise does, however, merely provide a starting point for the consideration of new structure plan arrangements. Well argued cases for additional areas to be added will be considered before any firm decisions are made … I can assure you that all responses will be taken into account before any final decision is reached."
I hope that the Deputy Minister for Social Justice will confirm tonight that she has received well-argued cases not just from Fife Council but from others, such as the Highland Council, Perth and Kinross Council and Angus Council, as well as from hundreds of individuals. I hope that, in the light of those responses, she will withdraw the plans and ensure that Fife can continue to develop proposals for land use that meet the strategic and community needs of Fife.
I welcome this opportunity to focus on the implications of the "Review of Strategic Planning" consultation document. I thank Iain Smith for securing this debate and for allowing Fife MSPs to voice their opinions publicly.
The document's wide-ranging proposals for reforming strategic planning have, quite rightly, caused considerable concern in Fife. It was no surprise to me to find out that around half the responses to the consultation paper were about the implications for Fife.
Removing strategic planning powers from a coterminous region such as Fife, whose boundaries are used to administer local government services, economic redevelopment, the national health service and tourist support, is a move that fails to understand the importance of the integration of planning and developing infrastructure services and sustainability. It is worth mentioning that Fife Council is the only local authority area that is proposed to be split for strategic planning purposes.
The review of the planning system is needed, but many of the key recommendations that are made in the consultation document would serve only to set back the planning system in Fife. Integrating strategic planning with community and land use planning should, as Iain Smith said, be the main priority for any proposed reforms to the system. The proposals in the consultation document fail on that front by taking away and centralising controls for strategic planning.
The case for Fife's planning independence goes way beyond the strong traditional identity of the kingdom of Fife and focuses on how the economy develops and expands. Increasing the influence of Edinburgh and Dundee over the kingdom will only serve to refocus much development away from Fife and take away the kingdom's ability to compete on an equal footing with regions and cities in Scotland, the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union.
One of the most successful recent developments in Fife is the very aptly named Rosyth ferry. That project was brought to Fife by partnership working between all the agencies in Fife and Government. Balancing national and strategic needs with regional flexibility is key to developing the planning system in Scotland, but the consultation proposals serve only to tip the balance towards national rather than regional needs.
I have tried to concentrate on Fife as whole. My constituency sits in the centre of Fife. For my constituency, there is a fear that the pull of the two cities would mean that we would end up in no-man's land with lots of resources being pulled to the two ends of Fife, particularly the bridgehead. If all Fife is to be economically successful, we must pull together successfully.
I echo the responses made by Iain Smith, Fife Council, the Fife communities and the communities' representatives. I impress upon the minister the importance of Fife remaining a strategic planning authority. She should think again about how a greater balance and efficiency in planning systems can be created for the benefit of every city, town, region and village in Scotland.
Fighting for Fife is not a new activity for many of us. As Iain Smith said, there is a fear that the proposals are the thin end of the wedge. I know that that is not the intention, but the minister must know that it is the fear. For communities such as mine, it is important to know that it is not the case. I would like to hear what the minister has to say on that.
Like Iain Smith, I wrote to the previous minister and had reassurances that the views of those in Fife would be taken on board. In the light of the huge swell of opinion in Fife, I hope that the minister will reassure us on that.
Scott Barrie is in the chamber. He and I—we are both Fife members—continually row about our respective football clubs. I know that Scott will mention that in his speech. Even though Raith Rovers and Dunfermline fans sometimes differ on football, we pull together as a Fife community. That happened when we were a mining community and when we had to move and change our economic development strategies to suit the needs of the people of Fife.
I ask the minister to take the motion on board.
Marilyn Livingstone and Scott Barrie should probably compromise on Cowdenbeath.
Presiding Officer, I am glad that you did not talk about the rivalry between Cowdenbeath and East Fife and some of the insults that are thrown back and forward between fans. I refuse to enter into that debate.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I thank Iain Smith for introducing it. As well as being consulted about the Scottish Executive's proposals, Fife Council consulted the community in Fife and community councils and other organisations the length and breadth of Scotland. It wrote:
"The outcome of that consultation has yet again reaffirmed a very strong Fife identity and a recognition that any consideration of strategic issues, such as the economy, environment, transport and housing were by no means confined to Scotland's city regions. The consultation reinforced the community view that it was necessary to have a strategic plan for Fife given the scale and diversity of the area."
It is a feature of debates about Fife—whether about Fife railways or proposals for strategic planning—that we get MSPs from all parties in the chamber uniting. The one thing that ministers will see in the chamber is all Fife MSPs, regardless of their political party, fighting for Fife. That is one of the features of our expressing concerns on behalf of the whole of Fife.
I have been at public meetings from Tayport to Dunfermline and points in between. What comes across clearly is that any decision to remove the strategic planning responsibility from Fife Council would be to the detriment of Fife. The pull of Edinburgh and Dundee will result not only in a loss of autonomy in Fife, but in a loss of identity in Fife. That is a great concern.
On the outcome of a decision such as is suggested, the council says:
"It is considered likely that Fife's needs would be subsumed into a city dominated agenda. The regeneration issues which are socio-economically and geographically central to Fife would be peripheral to the new strategic planning areas. Locally-significant concentrations of deprivation and exclusion would require to compete for resources with deprived areas outside Fife. There is deep and universal concern amongst communities in Fife that they would be swallowed up in such a larger planning overview, contrary to the principles of subsidiarity."
It is important to recognise, as Marilyn Livingstone and Iain Smith said, that Fife Council has the same boundaries as all its strategic partners: Scottish Enterprise Fife, Fife NHS Board and the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board. Those are the circumstances in which Fife can develop its services, and they must continue to apply. The very idea that Fife may be split up and subsumed into two strategic planning authorities in Dundee and Edinburgh, with the wee bit in the middle just left to rot, is totally and absolutely unacceptable. I think that the minister is getting a flavour of the debate, and we hope that she will come forward with something positive at the end of it.
We also need to consider the fact that Fife is one of the largest local authorities in Scotland in terms of population. Indeed, Fife is greater in population than either Dundee City or the City of Edinburgh. Given that, it makes sense for Fife to remain a large unit.
Marilyn Livingstone raised the matter of the Rosyth ferry. Certainly it is well named.
I was wondering whether Trish Marwick was going to mention that. Can I take it that she will support me and other Fife colleagues in opposing her party's transport spokesperson's proposal to rename the Rosyth ferry port?
Mr MacAskill speaks as a Lothian and Edinburgh MSP, not as a Fife MSP. If he had been speaking as a Fifer, I am sure that he would never have said what he did. Mr MacAskill is entitled to his views, as I am to mine, and it is my view that Rosyth will need to be marketed carefully. I am sure that we can do that, saying something along the lines of, "Rosyth: a few minutes from the historic Forth bridge, which will take you into the city of Edinburgh." Whatever marketing has to be done, the Rosyth ferry name should remain as it is. On that issue, as on others, Fife MSPs speak as one.
I welcome this debate and thank Iain Smith for lodging his motion. As members know only too well, I appreciate any opportunity to talk about the interests of Fife. Clearly, this issue falls into that category.
The terms of Iain Smith's motion are correct. Fife is in an almost unique position in Scotland—it may, indeed, be unique—in having a council boundary that is basically unchanged from county council days. I was not old enough to participate in the fight for Fife campaign of the early 1970s, but I remember it from my primary school days. At that time it was proposed that North East Fife district would be grouped with the newly formed Tayside Regional Council and that Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline districts would be grouped with the newly formed Forthside regional council. Fifers fought that suggestion and won. We ended up with a Lothian Regional Council, a Fife Regional Council and Tayside Regional Council covering a reduced area, but that is not the issue that we are discussing today.
Today's debate is about proposals in the strategic planning review to split Fife for strategic planning purposes. Unfortunately, not least because of some political mischief making, too many people in Fife believe that there is a proposal to split Fife into two, full stop. As I have said, such a proposal was resisted in 1973. It was resisted again in my constituency in 1995, when the Tories redrew the local government map. Then, the proposal was to group Falkirk and Clackmannanshire, splitting them from a supposedly more Tory-leaning Stirling. Of course, that assumption turned out to be wrong. As Falkirk and Clackmannanshire did not have a common boundary, the only way in which they could logically be grouped together was by using the community of Kincardine, with its bridge, to link them. In a consultative ballot organised by Kincardine community council, more than 90 per cent of local residents in Kincardine expressed the wish to remain in Fife.
Fife is a diverse area. I cannot pretend that the places that I represent are socially or economically identical to some of the places that Iain Smith represents—our constituencies are at opposite ends of Fife—but we both know, as do others in the chamber, that Fife retains a particular identity. I may dislike Raith Rovers Football Club—that is probably an understatement—but I applaud to the chant, "If you're proud to be a Fifer, clap your hands," which is heard every Saturday at East End Park and sums up how all of us in Fife feel. We may have our petty rivalries and differences when talking among ourselves, but once attacked from outwith we group together and become a very prickly bunch.
That is not to say that people in Fife have no understanding of what is happening. As has already been said, and as I want to make quite clear, we know that this debate is not about splitting Fife into two. It is about a proposal—and only a proposal—to split Fife for strategic planning purposes. Unfortunately, because of the way in which that proposal has been represented in Fife—however that has happened—this has become almost a fight for Fife mark two, with people believing that Fife may end up being split into two separate bits.
Fife Council, MSPs and community groups have all made their views clear. Like everyone else, last August I wrote to Lewis Macdonald to give my view on the proposal. I hope that the Executive will reflect seriously on the almost unanimous view that is being expressed in Fife. I hope that when she sums up, the minister will reassure the 349,200 people who live in Fife that whatever happens to strategic planning functions, there is no plan to split up Fife for other purposes. I ask her to reassure those people that council services such as education, social work and, in particular, concessionary fares will continue to be administered by the same Fife Council that has administered them very effectively, for all the people of Fife, for such a long time.
I congratulate Iain Smith on securing today's debate, which is of great importance to the kingdom of Fife.
This is an issue in which I, like Iain Smith, have taken a considerable interest in recent weeks, through contact with Fife Council and, as the minister will know, parliamentary questions. The depth of local interest in the matter is shown in those questions, which also give a measure of how controversial are the Executive's plans to split Fife for strategic planning purposes. From the answers, I know that more than 150 responses have been received from Fife on the Executive's consultation paper, "Review of Strategic Planning". That figure contrasts considerably with four responses from Stirling, five from Perth and Kinross and two from Clackmannanshire. That alone shows the hornets' nest that the Executive's proposal has stirred up. Given that level of local concern, I strongly encourage a rethink.
Fife Council is clear that it wishes to remain a distinct strategic planning authority, although that should not prevent it from taking a wider view with neighbouring strategic planning areas—effective co-operation already takes place with adjacent authorities. The Executive has only recently pushed through the legislation to link transport planning in southern Fife to Edinburgh and the Lothians through its revised Forth bridge joint board, which has new powers to address transport issues that are wider than the maintenance of the bridge.
If the requirement is to take account of an extension of housing or business land needs in the city areas of Edinburgh and Dundee, that can be achieved easily through the Executive's national planning policy statements. The co-operation that is required for planning transport links is already in place and a dispersal of housing and business would help to maintain and improve the quality of life in Fife and the adjacent city regions. That does not require two plans for Fife—it simply requires wider consideration of what is needed when the policies on which Fife would draw up its strategic plan are determined.
Removal of Fife's strategic planning role would also work against the Executive's policies on community planning. It is clear that Fife Council already has strong links and coterminous boundaries with Scottish Enterprise Fife, Fife NHS Board and the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board, to name the key, but not sole, organisations. Fife also has an integral identity, as can be seen from the consultation responses. Ministers meddle with that at their peril.
I agree with Fife Council that
"there are no demonstrable advantages for Fife in the proposals."
If the minister considers carefully the issues that have been raised in the debate, I am sure that she will come to the same conclusions.
It is in the interests of effective local community and land use planning that Fife should remain distinct and able to address its own internal issues. I look forward to a change in emphasis from the minister so that Fife can remain a single strategic planning authority.
Presiding Officer, you mentioned Cowdenbeath, which is in my constituency—I compliment you on your taste in football teams.
My comments were contingent purely on the debate between Dunfermline Athletic and Raith Rovers.
I have watched only one quality football match in my life—Real Madrid v Eintracht Frankfurt. I confess that I have never watched Cowdenbeath play, although I can refer members to a good publication on the subject.
Shame.
What an admission.
I know—I will soon fix that. A good book that says much about the subject is "Donald Dewar Ate My Hamster" by a journalist from The Herald, who speaks very highly of Cowdenbeath.
I turn to the strategic planning consultation. I compliment Iain Smith on his work on securing the debate—it is never easy to secure a members' business debate. I share Tricia Marwick's view that there is unanimous support in the chamber for the motion. Although I am not a Fifer—it is time for confessions—it is said that
"It is better to meddle wi the deil than wi the bairns o Falkirk."
The minister had better watch out.
My purpose in showing solidarity with Iain Smith, Marilyn Livingstone and Scott Barrie is to underline the strong opposition that is evident throughout the communities that I represent. As earlier speakers said, many constituents regard the proposals as turning the clock back to the 1970s when a major political battle was fought. Although I was not around at that time, I know that it was thought that that would have a deleterious effect on the Fife economy. Local people have a strong perception that the battle is here again. Irrespective of the fine detail in the Executive's consultation document, local people believe that the proposal is the thin edge of the wedge.
As Iain Smith said, the debate is not about what the document says—it is about local people's perception of the longer term. As a local authority, Fife Council's strategic planning has been particularly effective in developing economic and social strategies, as other members have said. The great strength of Fife Council has been its ability to develop both economic and social strategies within its planning framework.
Altering that present pattern of planning potentially sends a message to local government that the Scottish Executive wants to suck up powers into the centre for the minister. The issue raises questions about subsidiarity and flexibility. The Parliament has tried hard to avoid sucking up powers from local government and has tried to strengthen local government's powers. I hope that we will continue with that approach.
Fife Council can justifiably argue that it is one of the few councils in Scotland that has been able to develop effectively in a planning context. As Iain Smith said, that is because the council's boundaries are coterminous with the police board, the health board, the enterprise agency and many other agencies. To attack that planning system will be perceived by all as the first step in dismantling the kingdom of Fife—I am not sure whether anyone other than Iain Smith has referred to the kingdom so far. I shall not repeat the reasons that Iain Smith gave for retaining Fife as one entity, but we must not diminish those boundaries, which still exist and are still powerful.
Let me turn to the notion of partnership. Fife has always embraced the notion of overlapping circles, by which I mean that the council has always worked constructively in whatever partnerships it has been involved, such as those with authorities in Tayside or Edinburgh or with the authorities to the west in Falkirk and Stirling. Indeed, Fife Council helped to lead the establishment of the transport partnerships that Keith Harding mentioned. Fife Council was in the lead in trying to develop the south-east Scotland transport partnership, which has become crucial. As Keith Harding also mentioned, through the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, Fife Council helped to secure representation on the board that deals with the Forth bridge. Fife has been among Scotland's pioneers in developing the partnership approach through its European work. In its work with the North Sea Commission and the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, Fife sought to develop the notion of spatial planning at European level long before spatial planning became the vogue in the UK.
I strongly urge the Executive to dismiss any notion of splitting Fife's planning capabilities. I urge the Executive to work with agencies such as the south-east Scotland transport partnership to develop a strategy to support appropriate planning developments. I hope that the Executive will not engage in any actions that might adversely impact on the business confidence and investment capabilities that have arisen through Fife Council's sterling work and that of all the councillors who serve the communities throughout Fife. I hope that the minister will support our views.
Given that I will be on record, I should be careful how I say this, but I did not realise that the Parliament's association with the F-factor would come through Fife. Everyone has talked about a fighting Fife, but I think that "fearsome" is the word that I am quickly learning. Life in the ministerial ranks is indeed lonely. I feel as though I have been ganged up on tonight.
To be more serious, I congratulate Iain Smith on securing tonight's debate. I have listened carefully to what has been said. As I am sure members can imagine, Fife has been on my agenda since I took over the planning brief. I am considering the issues in great depth. I reassure members that there will be further discussions on this subject and that I hear what people are saying.
Let me go through the text of my speech, so that we can put on record where we are with respect to this subject. I am sure that the debate will be on-going. Members will be aware that the reasons for conducting the review include the fact that the context within which development plans are prepared has changed in the 30 years since the statutory basis for our current system was established. Obviously, there is now a Scottish Parliament and a single tier of local government.
At present, Scotland has 17 structure plan areas, which vary in size from the grouping of the eight local authorities in the Glasgow conurbation to individual councils such as Falkirk. There is a growing feeling that those differences do not reflect Scotland's geographic realities in the 21st century and that many plans are not up to date. We need a system that provides clarity of strategic direction and brings with it a commitment to act to ensure economic confidence and stability.
Some plans are out of date and fail to give clear guidance on the scale and location of future development and redevelopment. Obviously, that is a major concern to the development industry and to local communities, which are looking for greater certainty about the long-term future of their area. Local communities want to be included and involved in the discussion.
Some of the current structure plan areas do not reflect either current, or likely future, geographical realities. Some are, indeed, too small. The public have high expectations for the planning system but are concerned about the transparency and accountability of the current arrangements. The Executive is taking action on a number of fronts to address such concerns.
Our planning system is not working as well as it should. Many people have made that point. Before we published our consultation paper in June, officials discussed the issues with a wide range of interests, including Fife Council and Scottish Enterprise Fife. Lewis Macdonald launched the consultation paper on 15 June and the consultation period ran until 31 October. Officials continued to discuss the proposals with interested parties throughout that period. Those discussions included a joint meeting with Fife Council and Scottish Enterprise Fife. As I am sure members are aware, Lewis Macdonald met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities planning members network, at which meeting Fife Council was represented. Considerable support has come for the open and inclusive approach that we have taken and, indeed, for our specific proposals.
We propose that the current Scotland-wide requirement for structure plans and local plans, which results in two-tier development plans, should be dropped. We believe that in many parts of Scotland there are few, if any, strategic land use, planning and development issues with a strong locational dimension. Outwith the four city regions, travel-to-work areas and housing market areas are, essentially, local.
There may be controversial local issues, but the fact that an issue is controversial does not necessarily make it strategic. Structure planning was introduced as a means of guiding large-scale population growth and economic expansion, but small scale and incremental pressure is very much the norm in much of rural Scotland today.
However, in some parts of Scotland, planning issues are genuinely strategic—by which I mean issues that are big in scale and that transcend council boundaries. That is why we have proposed that strategic plans should be prepared for each of Scotland's four major cities and their hinterlands. We stopped short of proposing where the boundaries of the resulting city regions should lie, but we have invited comment on the matter.
I am a little concerned about the thrust of what the minister is saying. A possible consequence of what is being proposed is that, in areas that do not have structure plans, local plans will have to cover bigger areas. Councils will become fearful that local plans will not cover big enough areas to deal with all the strategic issues that they want to deal with, such as housing allocations. Has the minister given any thought to the possibility that local plans will become less local if the Executive gets rid of structure plans?
The issue is still out to consultation and I will come back to it. I assure Mr Smith that, if submissions came in that told us that what we proposed would not work or would be unwieldy, we would consider them. However, I am not convinced that what Mr Smith suggests would necessarily happen or that we would disempower communities and not allow them proper influence in the planning process. Given the point that I made about the need to distinguish between local and strategic, I am not convinced that we would not have a proper and locally based planning system. As yet, I am not persuaded of the case that Mr Smith makes, but I would consider any evidence.
Many people—Fife Council included—appear to have concluded that we intend not only to include parts of Fife, or all of Fife, in Dundee and Edinburgh city regions, but to divest Fife Council of elements of its planning powers. Indeed, some have gone as far as to suggest that our proposal is a harbinger of something else. I categorically assure those who have expressed such concerns that our proposal is not a harbinger of something else.
Obviously, I am not as familiar with Fife as other members in the chamber tonight are. I dare not suggest otherwise—if I did, I am sure that I would be sorted out. However, I know that Fife's geography is unique and that Fife fills the space between two of our major cities, Dundee and Edinburgh. No other council area does that. I understand some of the history of the kingdom, although I had not understood the fighting Fife culture. I will certainly take those points on board. However, such considerations do not mean that joint working with Dundee and Edinburgh is not appropriate.
Let me stress that the review is not about local authority reorganisation and that Fife Council will remain a planning authority, just as it is now. I also emphasise that the consultation exercise is genuine. The Executive has always said that it will listen to alternative proposals. I guarantee that I will continue to listen to the arguments that are raised.
Does the minister accept that the kingdom of Fife is currently undertaking much work in partnership with both cities and that that works very well? The imposition of the new system could in some ways put up boundaries. If something is working well, as it is in Fife, why break it? Does the minister accept that much work is being done, as various members have mentioned this evening?
In all sincerity, I have to say that the contrary argument applies. Evidence that people work well together makes me think that there is an argument to support the proposals. We want to encourage that kind of partnership working.
Will the minister give way?
I have a lot of text to get through, so this must be the final intervention.
Some of the concern in Fife relates to the fact that, if the council has to deal with Dundee and Edinburgh, it will never be in a position to control a vote and so will lose out. People are concerned that Fife will be submerged by the two huge cities.
I understand that that is the argument that has been made in some of the submissions. I have considered the arguments in the submissions, although not their detail. As yet, I am not particularly persuaded by that argument. The evidence from Glasgow, where there is wider working within the conurbation, shows that it does not apply. In theory, it is an argument against partnership working, which causes me some concern. That is not to say that I have concluded that I am not prepared to hear that argument advanced. However, in principle, I do not consider it to be an argument against the proposal. We need to encourage joint working as a culture. In this case, it seems to me that it is in Fife's interest to put in place a wider arrangement to control broader, more strategic issues.
Please bear with me as I continue my speech. I am sure that we will have a further debate on the issue.
If we decide to take forward the city region strategic development plans and conclude that parts or all of Fife should lie within the boundaries of the city regions of Dundee and Edinburgh, partnership working will have to be in place to prepare the strategic development plans that address those strategic issues that go beyond the boundaries of Fife Council. I must say that I think that to do that would be in the interests of Fife. In essence, the plans will focus on employment, housing, the environment and transport, which are issues that must be considered in the wider geographic context. We need to get into broader and more strategic discussions. That approach should be looked on not as a dilution of planning powers, but rather as an opportunity to influence beneficially the way in which Dundee, Edinburgh and their respective hinterlands develop in the coming years and how they impact on the interests of Fife.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I must move on. If Tricia Marwick has points to raise with me, I will be happy to deal with them later.
The briefing that the Royal Town Planning Institute circulated to MSPs yesterday emphasised the point that the proposals present Fife with an opportunity.
I should point out that the councils that work with Glasgow in preparing the Glasgow and the Clyde valley structure plan are not campaigning to be released from the joint working arrangements that apply, as they see working together as being in their interests. On that basis, I cannot grasp the principle that working together is somehow not in the interests of others. As yet, I am not persuaded why Fife should feel uncomfortable about the idea of working with other councils to prepare strategic development plans if that is the outcome of our deliberations.
Iain Smith made a significant point when he said that defining city regions is not necessarily a straightforward solution. We have to be careful that we get it right. Accordingly, I am pleased to announce that we will shortly commission research on defining city regions. We will publish the outputs from that research in the late spring.
Let me speak briefly about our time scale for taking the review forward. Members already know a great deal about the responses to our consultation. The responses are being analysed by an independent planning consultant. We expect to receive his report, which we will publish along with a comprehensive digest of all the responses, around the end of January. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement about the way forward in late spring.
As members know, the consultation period ended on 31 October 2001 and we expect a report by the end of January 2002. We intend to hold a seminar on 22 January, to which interested parties have already been invited, to give feedback on the consultation. As I said, I will publish an overview of the comments received in the consultation in the spring. The timetable of changes will depend on what needs to be done. Some changes can be made by administrative means or secondary legislation, but some will require primary legislation. I cannot provide members with a firm date for a planning bill, but I hope that it will be early in the next session of Parliament, although obviously we cannot give any guarantees about that.
In conclusion, we should remind ourselves of the overall context. The current statutory basis for development plans is 30 years old and things have to be changed. We now have a Scottish Parliament and we have unitary local authorities rather than a two-tier local government structure. Some plans are out of date and fail to serve the central purpose of guiding future developments. Public expectations of the planning system call into question the transparency and accountability of the current arrangements. In essence, we have a planning system that is not working as well as it should, either for the development industry or for communities. The consultation provides a starting point for consideration of the new strategic planning arrangements. We have not closed our minds to the well-argued cases for additional areas to be added or to the arguments that have been raised in this debate—I reassure members of that. The argument will be straightforward and we will still consider the basic principles of what was in our review paper.
Meeting closed at 17:56.