National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06933, in the name of Derek Mackay, on progress towards national planning framework 3 and the Scottish planning policy.
14:41
This debate is about the Scottish Government’s two key planning policy documents: the national planning framework, which is our long-term spatial plan for the development of Scotland; and the Scottish planning policy, which sets out what we want the planning system to deliver at the strategic and local levels.
I will highlight some key aspects of our proposals and touch on the extensive consultation process that we are currently engaged in, of which this debate is a key part. First, however, I want to set the policies in the wider context of planning reform.
The central purpose of the Scottish Government is to make Scotland a more successful country, with opportunities for all to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. Planning can and must do more to contribute to that. I want the planning system, now more than ever, to focus on delivering jobs and growth; I want it to facilitate the investment in infrastructure that will be crucial as we make the transition to a genuinely low-carbon economy; and I want the outcome of the planning process to be better places—places that are better for us, which are more sustainable and which attract investment.
It is very clear what the minister wants: he wants growth to be the central purpose of the planning system. However, does the legislation that was passed in the second session of the Scottish Parliament not suggest that a different objective—sustainable development—should be the criterion that ministers have in mind at all times in relation to their decisions on the planning system?
I am sure that Mr Harvie will be relieved to hear that we have greater protection of the environment at our core at the same time as encouraging sustainable economic growth. It is for those reasons that he can have the certainty that we are very mindful of our obligations.
It is only through a well-functioning planning system—efficient, inclusive and focused on delivering high-quality development—that we can fully realise our ambitious plans. I will therefore briefly outline the next steps that I have identified for our planning reform.
I want to underline our commitment in Scotland to a plan-led system. I do not mean a slavish adherence to lines on a map at the expense of good judgment and common sense; I mean forward-looking, place-based, visionary development plans that support growth and are produced on time. We need to focus on performance and resources. That is why we, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, have convened a high-level group to look at planning performance and work in partnership to improve it.
I believe that an adequately resourced planning system is a fair expectation if we are to have a high-quality service and continual improvement. That is why in April, with the Parliament’s support, we increased by 20 per cent the cost of planning fees. It is also why we introduced the e-planning system, which has been such a great success, making the planning system more efficient and more inclusive, and allowing online access to planning information across the country. Five years since its launch, it is on track to deliver financial savings of £50 million during its first 10 years, all for an initial investment of £11 million. Today, some 45 per cent of all planning applications in Scotland are submitted through the e-planning website.
The expectation cuts both ways, though, because an adequately-resourced planning authority must deliver the level of service that we all want to see. We are progressing that through the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Margaret Mitchell has lodged an amendment that would have the Scottish planning policy underline the crucial role of enforcement in the planning system. In cases in which a failure to comply with planning requirements causes real problems for communities or risks serious environmental harm, it is absolutely right that the planning authority has the power to take timely and effective action to remedy the problem. I am therefore happy to accept the amendment in Margaret Mitchell’s name.
I am convinced that ambitious policies and a well-performing planning system go hand in hand. That is why, throughout the spring and early summer, I have been leading an intensive engagement programme with people who have an interest in planning. I am delivering a series of workshops for front-line planning staff around the country that focus on our agenda of improved performance and culture change. In support of our consultation on national planning framework 3 and the Scottish planning policy, we are looking at holding a series of stakeholder events across Scotland—from Orkney to Edinburgh and from Dundee to Dumfries. I will visit many of the national developments that are proposed in our report, “Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework: Main Issues Report and Draft Framework”.
On the first comprehensive review of the Scottish planning policy, a recurring theme in our stakeholder engagement has been that the SPP is serving us well for the most part. However, I want to make the SPP much clearer on the specific outcomes that we want planning to deliver.
First and foremost, I want the SPP to be much clearer about how important it is that the planning system delivers jobs and growth. Development plans must be deliverable and informed by sound economic evidence, particularly the local economic strategy. The economic benefits of a proposed development need to be a material consideration. Significant weight should be placed on economic benefits and in particular on jobs.
I intend to bring key policy messages on place making into the heart of Scottish planning policy. Our proposed policy reflects the issues that are being considered in our review of town centres, which will report shortly. In particular, we have widened the town-centres-first approach, so that not only retail and leisure developments but other developments that generate significant travel, such as schools, hospitals and offices, should be in the town centre wherever possible.
Members might think from recent press coverage that the SPP and NPF3 are all about wind farms. That is far from the case, of course, but let me be absolutely clear: the Scottish Government’s support for renewable energy, including onshore wind, remains as strong as ever. Alongside that, we want to see more community benefits from new wind farms and more community-owned developments.
We need the right developments in the right places. We are strengthening protection for our finest landscapes, including greater protection for wild land. We do not want to see new wind farms in our national parks and national scenic areas—our most scenic and iconic landscapes.
I am grateful to the minister for giving way a second time. He said that there will be no wind farms in national parks or scenic landscape. Will he say precisely what that provision means? Will such a presumption against wind farms cover individual wind turbines? What is the definition of “wind farm”?
We are working on the definition of “wind farm”, but any reasonable person would understand that it means a number of wind turbines in a particular area. The policy in relation to group 1, “Areas where wind farms will not be acceptable”, constitutes an outright ban, for the first time, on wind farms in national parks and national scenic areas. I will be happy to get back to the member on wind turbines. I say again that individual planning applications are determined on their merits.
I welcomed the engagement of the renewables industry, which will continue as we approach 23 July—the end of the 12-week consultation. I am convinced that we can deliver on our renewables targets, providing greater opportunities and greater protection where that is required.
The challenge of climate change compels us to make the transition to a sustainable, growing, low-carbon economy. That is a key focus of our proposals for the third national planning framework. Sarah Boyack’s amendment notes that the climate change target for 2011 was missed, and it suggests that policies and investment are required to cut emissions further. We agree. The Government’s climate change second report on proposals and policies gives details of a package of measures to enable us to achieve our targets. We have already committed more than £1.1 billion over the current spending review period, specifically for action on emissions.
The amendment in Sarah Boyack’s name highlights the importance of the planning system to sustainable development and the importance of sustainable communities in helping to achieve Scotland’s climate change targets. We agree on those matters, too. I am pleased that Sarah Boyack appears to be so closely aligned with the Government, and I am happy to accept the amendment in her name.
I have already touched on what we propose for onshore wind energy through Scottish planning policy, but our ambitions for low-carbon energy infrastructure amount to far more than that. Grid enhancement is essential if we are to make the most of our natural energy resources, and NPF2 identified a suite of electricity grid enhancements as a national development. We propose to retain that in NPF3, updated to take account of current plans, particularly for offshore and international connections.
If we are to reap the maximum economic benefits from the low-carbon revolution, we must ensure that we have the necessary infrastructure and a welcoming environment for the design, manufacture, installation and servicing of renewable energy generation in Scotland. That is why we want to give support to some of our best opportunities to do so—to our low-carbon enterprise areas, sites in the national renewables infrastructure plan, and other clusters of energy-related activity in places such as Aberdeenshire, Ayrshire and the three island authority areas.
As part of our balanced energy mix, we very much want to see carbon capture and storage applied to gas and coal-fired power stations in Scotland. We have a number of projects in Scotland in which, with the right financial support, we can make that happen. The Peterhead carbon capture and storage project is an opportunity to develop the world’s first commercial-scale full chain carbon dioxide capture, transportation and storage project. It has secured preferred bidder status by the United Kingdom Government Department of Energy and Climate Change, and proposals for a new power station with CCS at Grangemouth remain on the reserve list.
Will the minister clarify what the status of the Peterhead proposal would be should his party’s policy of independence be successful?
I am sure that Scotland’s excellent record on energy and on ambitious climate change targets will continue with independence. In fact, I am sure that it will be enhanced with independence and that any on-going discussions with the UK Government, if they are mature, pragmatic and realistic, will benefit Scotland’s position as we reach the ambitions that we have laid out. I do not buy into the idea that the UK Government would be reckless if Scotland achieves independence. We see a pragmatic opportunity, and I am sure that the UK Government will see sense.
As I have talked to people about what should be in NPF3, one thing that has been striking has been the support for green infrastructure. The central Scotland green network has been a very popular national development from NPF2. Therefore, there is no doubt that we want to continue to support it.
We have also had much interest in the walking and cycling infrastructure. I therefore propose that the development of a national network of long-distance routes for walking and cycling be a national development.
Twenty years ago, I helped to set up Loudon pond community nature reserve in Clydesdale. That was the result of site regeneration, and it is now regarded as a community asset for biodiversity. On the policies on brownfield sites, will the minister reflect on the importance of some brownfield sites for biodiversity and public green spaces, as highlighted by Buglife and others?
That is an excellent point, with which I agree. I have been very impressed by work by, for example, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, which I visited in Cumbernauld, in looking at the pathways that connect urban communities with the environmental aspect and showing how we can connect ecosystems with economics. The central Scotland green network is a great example of where that has been done on a strategic basis. I am delighted to say that it is proposed that support for that should continue with national planning framework 3. The very important point about the understanding of the environment is central to the documents, and we want to bring that alive locally as well as nationally.
On our proposed spatial strategy, we must of course recognise the role of our cities as drivers of economic growth, and we will do further work in both the cities and the towns to support economic regeneration, as I mentioned earlier.
Examples of good planning that are supported through our proposals include the projects, which have been designated as national developments for the first time, at Ravenscraig and Dundee waterfront, where we were able to launch the proposals. There are further comments on the decarbonisation of the economy, alternative fuels, decarbonising transport, support for rail and modal shifts, and further energy aspects that relate to our low-carbon ambitions.
We have also taken cognisance of how some NPF2 projects that have been developed and delivered no longer require the same consenting regime, and they therefore no longer feature in NPF3. Other changes will include the long-term ambitions at Scapa Flow and Hunterston, which other members may talk about.
I believe that our policies represent something for every part of the country. They focus on sustainable economic growth while giving greater protection to the environment. We have to strike that balance for the right reasons and to achieve the Government’s overarching objective in consultation with communities across Scotland. I commend the motion and the policy documents to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the publication of Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework: Main Issues Report and Draft Framework and the Draft Scottish Planning Policy; recognises the ongoing innovative work to engage the public in the development of the proposals; supports their focus on economic recovery, balanced growth and creating a low-carbon place; further supports the aspiration to ensure that Scotland is a natural place to invest in, by making best use of natural resources and protecting national assets; recognises the importance of placemaking and the opportunities to ensure that Scotland is a successful, sustainable place by supporting economic and regeneration priorities; believes that planning can play an important role in facilitating a planned approach to transport and digital infrastructure to make Scotland a connected place, and endorses the positive steps being taken to ensure that national planning policy plays a proactive role in supporting economic recovery.
14:55
I thank the many organisations that have sent us briefings today. I realise that they had a very short time to pull together their key observations, and their briefings have been really helpful to me—and I suspect others—in preparing for this debate.
At its heart, planning is a democratic process that enables communities and their representatives to shape change. The purpose of the Labour amendment is to flag up our concerns about the increasing use of the term “sustainable economic growth” rather than “sustainable development”. We are concerned because a more sustainable Scotland will be created not just by willing it to happen but by the many incremental day-to-day decisions that are taken through the planning system and by infrastructure development.
Leadership is absolutely crucial and there is much to welcome in both the draft NPF3 and the draft SPP, but definitions are important. I will take the opportunity today to push the minister on the way that he has framed the purpose and objectives in the NPF, because the minister’s suggestion that economic benefit should trump other considerations would be a step backwards.
There has been a healthy debate on that issue in discussions on the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill. Third parties such as the Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK and Unison have flagged up their concerns that, whereas the term “sustainable development” has been used throughout the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament, is in our own legislation and has international status, European Union status and UK status, the term “sustainable economic growth” potentially means all things to all people and could justify short-term change that would have long-term negative impact. To put “sustainable economic growth” above “sustainable development” in the SPP is to put them the wrong way round.
I accept that, as the minister said, we are in a recession and are experiencing a severe economic downturn, and I understand the ambition to ensure that NPF3 and the SPP contribute to economic recovery—that is absolutely essential. However, we need to take a long-term perspective, too. If we are to deliver the sustainable, low-carbon Scotland that the Scottish Government motion refers to, we need to ensure that all development contributes to both the social and environmental objectives that are encompassed by sustainable development, alongside contributing to our economic objectives.
That is why we have flagged up that we are still not on the right trajectory to deliver either our short or long-term commitments on climate change. If we are being honest, we all know that some of the big gains that we have made on climate change emissions have been as a result of the recession. We need to make sure that, as we come out of recession, we do so without sacrificing those gains, as that would leave future generations with even harder challenges.
Planning is fundamental to delivering the vision of a sustainable Scotland. NPF3 will enable national priorities to be established that can be the basis of public and private investment. It should be a long-term commitment by the Scottish Government that gives a degree of certainty for business investment.
Identifying sites is not sufficient. Articles about rising house prices have begun to appear, suggesting to us that things are getting better on housing, but that is an indication of housing shortage rather than of a healthy housing market. There is an increasing premium on existing housing because there is a severe shortage of new build. In fact, we are at a historic low. Not since the second world war have we had so few new housing starts. There is a huge economic cost to the country and to the construction industry from the small number of housing starts: there is the economic cost of a lack of jobs and there is a cost to our capacity to grow. There is a major social price to pay, too.
Last month, the minister spoke at an Association of Women in Property event, at which he questioned whether we could expect the private sector to continue to contribute in the hard times to some of the infrastructure that local authorities now routinely expect to come as part of the planning process. There is a debate to be had on that. On one level the minister is right—private house-building companies are facing immense challenges in developing sites—but if we simply say that the requirements to contribute infrastructure should be reduced, that leaves the basic question of how that shortfall will be made up.
In the current economic climate, local authorities are already strapped for cash. Although many are pursuing innovative investment strategies—through tax incremental financing schemes, for example—if contributions to roads and schools do not come alongside new development, we will not get the high-quality communities to which we aspire. There is simply no straightforward alternative, and the Scottish Government needs to understand that.
I have said repeatedly that section 75 benefits should relate to the application and mitigation of a development, and not to the added extras that we know the public sector has sometimes acquired in more generous and plentiful times. Section 75 is still appropriate, but it should relate to the development in hand.
That could mean roads, public transport infrastructure, schools or energy, and we need to be much more specific. For example, because of the lack of investment from the Scottish Government, the City of Edinburgh Council is having to put its own money into housing associations in order to get any new investment for social housing, and there is a massive crisis in the city. If the Scottish Government is not requiring private development to put in the money, and is not itself prepared to put in the money, it is requiring local government to do so. The Government needs to be honest about that and to accept the impact that it will have on community development.
Local authorities and housing associations have been hit by a double whammy of cuts in housing investment from the SNP Government and the impact of welfare reform from the Tory Government, which together have completely undermined the economics of affordable social rented housing.
We are in the middle of a crisis, and the policy that is on paper in the SPP is not going to happen in reality. If we factor in the changing demographics highlighted by the Christie commission, we see that there are even more challenges to local planning authorities in relation to new models of community development that meet the needs of a growing elderly population. I do not believe that what is written on the pages of the SPP will deliver on the minister’s ambitions, because investment will be key.
One of the issues highlighted in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 was low-carbon housing, which is relevant to the intervention that the minister has just made. The act did not simply address the issue as one of individual house design; it was about the need for community renewable heat and power schemes. Given the massive increases in costs for domestic energy and heat, that is an issue not for NPF4 but for now.
Given the carbon emissions that come from housing, I wondered when reading the Government motion why energy infrastructure is not on the list alongside transport and digital infrastructure, because there is a market failure not only in housing but in affordable heat and power as well. It is only when local authorities such as Aberdeen City Council have gone out to make things happen that such schemes have worked. That issue is not flagged up in the housing section and, although there is a section on energy, we have all been so focused on renewables from wind farms that the fundamental issue of sourcing heat and power for urban communities and for housing has not been joined up.
If community renewables are to be part of our vision for our towns, villages and cities, they will not just happen by accident. They do not simply have to be planned for; they need political leadership from the Scottish Government.
I have a couple of minutes left, so in my closing remarks I want to list a couple of other important issues.
The Royal Town Planning Institute is right to welcome a renewed focus on town centres. We have all seen the report published in the past week or so showing that there is a possibility that, over the next four years, 25 per cent of retail units in town centres will go. The ambition of the SPP is good, but we need a bit more oomph. We need to put more emphasis on housing and residential developments in our city centres, because there has been a flight of people from our city centres. People want to live in city centres but, if all our developments are mixed commercial developments, our town centres will not survive. We must ensure that they are sustainable in the long run.
I also want to say something about green infrastructure receiving huge support for tourism, nature conservation and low-carbon lifestyles generally. There are references in the SPP to long-distance walking and cycle routes. That is great, but it must be complemented by investment, which means the Scottish Government investing more on national routes and greenlighting investment in local communities too.
We saw the ambition at the pedal on Parliament demonstration last month. The key point being made there was that people need to be able to use their bikes from their house to wherever they are going, but our streets are simply not safe enough. The issue is not just about long-term routes; it is about local routes, as well.
My final point is that there is a total absence of any proposals for new national parks. Even if a new national park were suggested in NPF3, it would still be years and years away. Surely it is time for our national parks in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms to be joined by another national park. What about our first marine and coastal national park? There is a lot in the NPF about our seas, coastal communities and ports development, which is welcome, but that makes the absence of a national park in our coastal and marine areas even more striking.
I must ask you to close.
The SPP is about the how and the NPF is about the where, as the RTPI says. I have focused on the purpose of planning and what should be in the purpose as set out by the SPP. Sustainable development must be the driver, not an afterthought, and at the moment the SPP does not have it the right way round.
I move amendment S4M-06933.3, to insert at end:
“, however notes that the Scottish Government has failed to meet its second climate change target; understands that the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 sets a clear need for policies and investment; further understands that the planning system plays a key role in helping to ensure that Scotland achieves sustainable development and that sustainable communities are essential to deliver on the targets adopted by the Scottish Government.”
I should say at the outset that we are quite tight for time in the debate.
15:06
I welcome today’s debate on the publication of the main issues report for the third national planning framework and the consultation draft of the Scottish planning policy.
The framework and policy documents have a vital role to play in supporting and promoting sustainable economic growth throughout Scotland. That view is reflected in the Scottish Government’s motion, which is why the Scottish Conservatives will vote in favour of the motion this evening. The fact that an amendment has been lodged in my name does not indicate any significant disagreement with the sentiments that are expressed in the motion. Rather, we seek to ensure that the importance of enforcement is highlighted.
The minister may recall that, during a similar debate in January, the Scottish Conservatives emphasised that enforcement is a crucial part of an effective planning system. In that debate, the minister and other members acknowledged and agreed with that point. It is encouraging that the draft SPP consultation document states that enforcement is a core value of the planning service, and the minister has confirmed that he supports our amendment.
In reality, our planning system is only as good as the level of enforcement that is carried out to ensure compliance once decisions have been made. It is essential, therefore, that in determining the final SPP the Scottish Government ensures that councils have robust, transparent and detailed planning enforcement charters that reflect modern conditions in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the planning system.
If we are to achieve that objective, there is an urgent requirement for more meaningful data on enforcement and how it currently operates. It is a matter of concern that, since the end of 2011-12, served planning enforcement notices are no longer broken down by type, which makes it impossible to monitor properly the extent to which enforcement is working. As MSPs know only too well, examples of failure in enforcement are legion. The situation must be addressed if the public are to have confidence in the system. There cannot be proper scrutiny of enforcement without the collection of hard empirical evidence and meaningful data.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am pressed for time. I will perhaps give way later.
I turn to some major aspects of the NPF3 main issues report. As an MSP for Central Scotland, I am heartened by the number of projects in my region that are designated as national developments. They include the central Scotland green network, which covers all three of the local authorities in Central Scotland; the Grangemouth investment zone; the Grangemouth and Peterhead carbon capture and storage project; and Ravenscraig. All of that is very good news.
It is expected that the development of Ravenscraig will lead to the creation of 12,000 jobs and make a significant contribution to the local economy, creating new opportunities in housing, education and leisure. There are clearly significant opportunities for regeneration and renewal at the Ravenscraig site, which will complement the new Motherwell College campus and the regional sports facility. In view of that, I sincerely hope that Ravenscraig remains one of the 14 new designations following the consultation.
When the minister gave evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee on NPF3 and the SPP, one issue that was raised was the removal of the term “brownfield site” from the draft SPP. Among the possible connotations of the term are that the land in question might be contaminated or in poor condition. That is often not an accurate assessment of the land, and the term “previously developed” might make such sites sound more attractive. However, as the term “brownfield site” is widely understood by the general public to mean land that can be developed and which is quite distinct from a greenfield site, I think that, on balance, it would be helpful to retain the term.
In the same evidence session, the minister indicated that the town centres review would report “shortly”. Given the town-centres-first approach that has been taken in the draft SPP, as well as the importance of the review to many other policy areas, I would be grateful if he could confirm when the external advisory group will report. I hope that that will happen prior to the close of the consultation so that it can help to inform stakeholder responses to the draft SPP.
In the Scottish Conservatives’ most recent energy policy review, a Scotland-wide zoning exercise was suggested, with the resulting zoning plan to be included in the SPP. The zoning plan would clearly identify areas in which wind farms or other renewables projects could never be granted planning permission and areas in which they might be suitable. Given that, we cautiously welcome the suggestion in the draft SPP that a more rigorous zoning system be adopted for onshore wind developments than currently exists.
That said, although around a third of the countryside will potentially be protected by the proposed guidelines, there is no commitment from the Scottish National Party to reduce the overall number of turbines and no sign that its enthusiasm for wind energy is beginning to wane. In such circumstances, the fear is that zoning might simply result in more pressure being put on the remaining two thirds of the country that will not be spared in the guidelines. In addition, I am afraid that it comes too late for many communities in Scotland.
The Scottish Conservatives agree with much of the NPF3 main issues report and the consultation draft of the SPP, as well as the commendable aims that those documents seek to achieve.
I move amendment S4M-06933.1, to insert after fourth “place”:
“; notes the crucial role that effective enforcement structures and mechanisms play in the planning system and believes that this should be stressed in the final Scottish Planning Policy”.
15:12
I thank Margaret Mitchell for giving me the opportunity to begin by commending the Government for not allowing the suggestion that there will be a reduction in wind turbines in Scotland. That would be a terrible situation to face were it to come about.
I welcome the debate and the draft documents that we have in front of us. The topic is vital. When I served in session 2 on the Communities Committee, which considered the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, it became clearer and clearer with every piece of evidence that we heard that the planning system is one of the most important—if one of the less sexy—areas of Government policy. It is crucial to our country’s future, regardless of the various views that exist about what that future should be.
I find the Government’s motion a wee bit curious. It uses the term “balanced growth”, not even the Government’s favourite contradiction, “sustainable economic growth”. I had a wee look, but I could not find anywhere on the Scottish Government’s website any document or ministerial speech in which the term “balanced growth” is used—not, that is, since Jim Mather was in office. I suspect that he used every bit of economic jargon ever invented in the history of the discipline.
As far as I am aware, there are at least two established meanings of the term “balanced growth” in the magic circles of economics, but it is completely unclear to me which one the Government intends to use and when that radical change in economic policy was adopted. It was certainly not announced in any of the economic documents that the Government published recently on the future of an independent Scotland, for example. Perhaps it is just a cobbled-together phrase that is in the motion without really meaning anything. The Government needs to be clear about what it really means when it uses such phrases.
Having listened very carefully to Patrick Harvie’s speech, I am completely unclear about what he means.
Well, I am not in government. Mike MacKenzie might be grateful for that, but I hope that one day I will have the chance to disappoint him.
Whether the Government has a definition of balanced growth or whether it simply means sustainable economic growth, which is its favourite buzz phrase, it is clear that growth, dressed up in whatever jargon we like, amounts to plain old gross domestic product growth and has been placed as the planning system’s central purpose. As I listened to the minister’s speech, it became very clear to me that that is foremost in his mind.
I am sure that some members will be comfortable with that. After all, some members still imagine that everlasting economic growth on a planet of finite resources is possible or desirable and that economic growth in a wealthy country does not increase inequality or environmental destruction to benefit a few.
However, what the legislation says—in black and white and as passed by the Parliament—is not a matter of debate. It says:
“Sustainable development: exercise of functions by Scottish Ministers
(1) This section applies to the Scottish Ministers in the exercise of their functions of preparing and revising the National Planning Framework.
(2) The Scottish Ministers must exercise those functions with the objective of contributing to sustainable development.”
It is pretty clear that the Government has decided that, instead of the objective of sustainable development, there will be a range of objectives that start with economic growth and put sustainability some way down the list. I find that deeply disappointing and out of keeping with the legislation.
Surely any reasonable person who reads the priorities in NPF3 will come to the clear conclusion that the transition to a low-carbon economy is a central driver in our planning policies.
Climate change is indeed mentioned, but I wonder whether a national planning framework and SPP that focus on sustainable development would have at their heart certain proposals, particularly on energy, that are out of keeping with the climate change objectives that the whole Parliament has signed up to on paper. I am referring in particular to coal gasification, fracking and the suggestion on page 23 of NPF3 that unconventional fuels are not a threat but an opportunity. The idea that a world that has several times more fossil fuel known and stored as reserves than it can afford to burn and that we should just go chasing after ever-more fuel through deepwater drilling one day, opencast mining the next and in the future fracking or other unconventional gas extraction is incompatible with sustainable development and the Government’s climate change objectives.
My amendment reflects my welcome for certain things in the minister’s documents, and there is also much to welcome in the other two amendments. For example, I welcome the Labour Party’s CO2 target arguments and I am happy to support the priority that the Conservative Party has given to enforcement.
I suspect that democratic accountability and participation have been improved since the court case over the coal-fired power station at Hunterston. Although 26 people responded to the consultation on its status as a national development, 22,000 objected to the development when it was proposed. Parliament will enter into a more formal period of scrutiny of the new NPF, but local accountability must remain a priority, and I urge the Government to consider that in revising the draft.
I move S4M-06933.2, to leave out from first “; recognises” to end and insert:
“but notes that section 3D of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006 places a duty on ministers to exercise their functions of preparing and revising the National Planning Framework with the objective of contributing to sustainable development; calls on the Scottish Government, in keeping with this statutory duty, to place sustainable development at the heart of planning rather than economic growth; welcomes the stated focus on climate change and creating ‘a low-carbon place’, but remains concerned at the likely climate impact of certain energy and transport proposals; believes that planning should also contribute to creating resilient communities, decarbonising the economy and protecting the environment; is pleased that the Hunterston coal-fired power station is no longer designated as a national development; is concerned that the extraction of unconventional fossil fuels is regarded as an opportunity; values the role of national policy and spatial planning, but calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that there is local democratic control over land use and meaningful public participation in decision-making.”
We move to the open debate. As we are quite tight for time, I must ask for six-minute speeches.
15:19
I am delighted that we have received many briefings for the debate from many interested organisations. After all, one of the problems that the planning system suffers from is public apathy, especially during the earlier consultation phases of planning policy. That is why I am glad that the Scottish Government is leading the way with the main issues report for NPF3 and the SPP consultation, especially as the associated documents are in plain and clear English, are uncluttered and are free from planning jargon.
There is a lesson for local planning authorities in that, because early public engagement and meaningful consultation depend on such documents being accessible to the wider public. Too often, reading local planning policy documents is an exercise in forcing our way through a dense lexicon of tortured and ambiguous terms; it is an exercise that is reminiscent of attempting to read some of our more esoteric post-modernist literature, which is meaningless to absolutely everyone—except, perhaps, the author.
I am glad, too, that the Scottish Government is forging ahead in a journey of continuous improvement for our planning system, because that system has too often in the past let us all down—applicants and the public—and has not delivered the outcomes that any of us would wish for in efficiency or fairness. Most important, it has not delivered on quality of development.
I am particularly glad about the emphasis in the draft SPP on design-led development, with its attendant themes of place making, designing better streets, the architecture and place policy statement and high-quality development. I welcome the new planning performance framework, but I am sorry that the first planning performance annual report suggests that less than a third of local planning authorities have stated that design improvements are negotiated during the application process. That is a disappointment.
Too much of the focus has been on answering the question whether to build rather than asking questions about the quality of design. That part of the planning system needs to improve, because nimbyism is often an expression of a lack of public confidence in the planning system as a vehicle for delivering well-designed and high-quality development.
I am glad, too, about the renewed focus on sustainable economic growth. Not thinking about that in our hierarchy of considerations is not to live in the real world; it is not to recognise the profound economic difficulties that many people face in communities throughout Scotland and not to recognise that we have one of two possible futures—one in which we face continuing poverty, or a better, well-designed one, in which we can all share the prosperity that sustainable economic growth will deliver.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry; the Presiding Officer has told us that we are short of time, so I think that I should move on.
The planning system should be the midwife of that well-designed, better future. I am surprised, therefore, by Patrick Harvie’s amendment, because I would have thought that the word “sustainable” as the constant prefix to economic growth would answer all his concerns.
Can Mr MacKenzie do what no Scottish Government minister has ever done and give a clear, unambiguous definition of what the hell sustainable economic growth even is?
I think that you are deliberately misunderstanding that. It is difficult to say in a few words precisely what the meaning is but, nevertheless, I think that we all understand exactly what the term means.
I would have thought that Patrick Harvie would welcome NPF3, with its ambitious programme of infrastructure projects that are necessary to secure our renewable energy generation opportunities, which are especially required if we are to take Professor Stiglitz’s advice about the opportunities for moving towards a green economy.
I have long been a fan of another Patrick—Patrick Geddes, the father of modern planning. He saw planning as the means of dealing with many of our socioeconomic problems, and I am glad that the Scottish Government is following that philosophy.
I assure members that they can have their full six minutes—we just do not have a lot of time in hand to compensate for interventions. I remind members to speak through the chair and to be mindful of the language that they use in the chamber.
15:25
As the minister is well aware, I have welcomed the inclusion of Ravenscraig as a national priority in NPF3. I hope that its redevelopment is not only consolidated in NPF3 but boosted significantly as a consequence of its enhanced status, through the extension of Scottish Government support and by attracting increased investment from the private sector.
When I think back to the works that once lit up the night sky, I think that it is worth noting that Ravenscraig has the potential to be a shining beacon again, but this time as an exemplary new community where sustainable development has been built in as part of the design process, with a town centre that is integrated with workplaces, homes, schools, shopping, leisure and community facilities, parks and wildlife areas that are all linked by state-of-the-art environmentally friendly public transport. Given the low-carbon, sustainable and connected objectives that the national planning framework seeks to pursue, it is appropriate that Ravenscraig should be a prominent part of NPF3.
The minister will be aware of my concern that the Scottish planning policy needs to make it clear that planning authorities should be prepared and able to abandon excessively strict adherence to planning by numbers in balancing the competing needs of communities. That is not to say that there should be a free-for-all that ignores carefully considered planning objectives; rather, we should not allow the resulting rules to become fixed in tablets of stone that get in the way of pursuing the objectives.
I welcome the general thrust of NPF3 and the SPP, but I have concerns about the interpretation of the vision that is being presented and the mechanisms and resources that will be available to support it. Significant concern has been raised in several of the briefings that we have received—and is likely to be repeated in submissions to the consultation—about whether a change in language reflects a change in policy. Does referring to sustainable economic growth, which is a poorly defined concept compared with the legally defined term “sustainable development”, mean that economic considerations will be given greater weight than the social and environmental consequences of development? That is the fear.
The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 requires local authorities to discharge their duty to seek best value
“in a way which contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.”
The statutory guidance for the act defines sustainable development as
“development which secures a balance of social, economic, and environmental well-being in the impact of activities and decisions; and which seeks to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Of course, that definition builds on the one given in the Brundtland commission report “Our Common Future”. How are we to interpret the emphasis on sustainable economic growth in comparison with those definitions?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will do so in a wee minute.
The worry is that, by emphasising the need for maintaining economic growth, we are discounting or undervaluing resources that do not contribute directly to the economic growth statistics. Will we take proper account of social and environmental aspects of development? Will we ensure the protection and growth of our natural, human and social capital, in addition to the financial variety?
Those questions could be settled easily in the debate were the Scottish Government to clarify its interpretation of sustainable economic growth and were it to promise to reaffirm its commitment to sustainable development when the final documents are published.
I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to say that, yes, the Scottish Government is just as committed as it ever was to sustainable development. Furthermore, the very project that Mr Pentland wants us to deliver in Ravenscraig—it involves brownfield regeneration and the creation of jobs, housing, industry and employment opportunities—is a wonderful example of that planning in practice. We are just as committed as ever. I hope that, once and for all, that puts the matter to bed.
That is why I allowed the minister to intervene.
John Pentland has one minute remaining.
Of course, making commitments to low-carbon places and economies is one thing, but backing up those commitments with action is another. It remains to be seen whether the Scottish Government will move from wishful thinking to firm commitments in its final report on proposals and policies, but the failure to meet the targets for the second year in a row does not augur well.
Getting the right policies on transport and housing is crucial to meeting our climate change targets. As I said in our debate on housing associations last week, current support does not make it easy to build good-quality low-carbon social housing. Relying on using up reserves is not very sustainable and nor is that the sort of prudential policy that the Scottish Housing Regulator has called for.
Overall, I agree with the direction of travel that we are offered in the documents, but I would like a greater commitment to speedier implementation and resources to match the commitments. I know that the minister will say that NPF3 is a planning document rather than a spending document, but the danger is that, like the draft RPP2, NPF3 will become just a wish list of things that we would like to do rather than a firm commitment to what will be achieved and a road map telling us how we get there.
You must conclude.
The minister has clearly put a lot of effort into NPF3 and into getting his Cabinet colleagues on board—
I am afraid that you really need to finish.
Can the minister be sure that he will get the same buy-in from his Cabinet colleagues when they need to provide the necessary resources to put the plan into practice? Perhaps he can answer that in summing up.
15:31
I welcome the intention behind today’s motion and have some sympathy with the Labour and Conservative amendments. As the motion states, the consultations on NPF3, which builds on NPF2, and on the SPP are very much welcome, and I congratulate the minister and his team on producing them.
However, let me mention one caveat, on which I have not spoken to my friend Mike MacKenzie, before I enter the general fray of the debate. Given that the proposals in the consultation will affect everyone in Scotland, in producing such reports—this applies not just to the reports that we are considering today—can we put them within the linguistic reach of the people who will be affected by them? For example, paragraph 164 of the draft Scottish planning policy states:
“Proposals that would result in or exacerbate a deficit of green infrastructure should include provision to remedy that deficit with accessible infrastructure”
and so on. I appeal to the minister and his colleagues for a simpler and more linguistically inclusive reporting method.
The principal policy objective in the motion refers—rightly—to our aim that Scotland should flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. On that point, let me help Mr Harvie and others who are struggling with the shorthand. We are saying that, before we can do all the other things that we want to do, including providing a greener infrastructure, we need sound financial and planning systems that enable us to build all the elements of our productive environment and to find and build new ones. We must, as a priority, simultaneously harness a fairer, healthier nation that secures with substance—
Will the member give way?
No. We could go on all day debating what the term means, but I do not intend to do that.
We also need to attain meaningful further planned sustainable development that, as I said, will provide the greener environment that we all seek. In that context, let me address two areas in which the planning framework and the SPP will rightly deliver improvement. We are nothing if we do not consider our communities, our town centres and the people in them. I have no doubt that Scotland will attain its target of producing 100 per cent of its electricity needs from renewables by 2020.
I suggest, however, that one of the vehicles that has been adopted to achieve wind farm developments, namely community benefits—or benefits that developers might offer voluntarily to communities that are likely to be affected by a development—is not the only right vehicle, as is proposed in the planning document. That vehicle has been exaggerated by the London Government’s recent threat to quadruple community benefits from developers. Irrespective of how we dress up those benefits, they are inducements—some might even say that they are bribes—to communities. Sometimes, and in only a few cases, inducements are offered to the select few elected members of community councils, who can then disburse the largesse as they see fit, thus embellishing and exaggerating their perceived power in the community. Sometimes, that process creates animosity.
I ask the minister to amend that portion of the plan and to add an element in favour of greater community ownership of developments—certainly for wind farms, although not only for them—in a form that provides profit sharing by developers or dividends from a community’s equity share in a development. I applaud the recent development in which, after many discussions with more progressive wind farm developers, a domestic-fuel discount scheme has been introduced to reduce fuel bills in communities to which wind farms are attached.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
The planning system and our future land systems might address the financial benefits that flow from developments to landowners, some of whom would not know Scotland if they landed on it.
I turn to paragraphs 54 to 67 of the draft planning policy, which are on the principles and plans for development of our town centres, and delivery of those plans. The proposal is that local authorities should prepare strategies that are predicated on the long list that has been drawn up in paragraph 56 of the draft Scottish planning policy. We are supposed to have done that already in some areas, and we have even pumped in substantial moneys to assist the renaissance of our town centres. The challenge is that the last point in that long list of proposed actions in the SPP calls for
“monitoring against the baseline provided by the health check to assess the extent to which it has delivered improvements.”
I invite and appeal to the minister to ensure that there is a meaningful regular review strategy and an audit of the strategy and finance of the groups that are responsible for development of town centres and their planning outcomes.
NPF3 and the draft Scottish planning policy provide meaningful frameworks to establish sustainable growth and betterment for our people, our economy and our nation.
15:37
As a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, I am delighted to contribute to this debate on Scotland’s third national planning framework and to consider how best we ensure that planning contributes to wider economic recovery.
I am keen for the third framework to build on the commendable principles that were contained in previous planning strategies, and I encourage the Scottish Government to be aspirational in confronting some of the biggest challenges that we are likely to face in the decades ahead.
The Minister for Local Government and Planning, Derek Mackay, has stated that the key priority of NPF3 will be supporting sustainable economic growth. Like other members who have spoken in the debate, I feel that the Scottish Government’s focus on the phrase “sustainable economic growth” is somewhat ambiguous, as it is much less clearly defined than the previously used phrase, which was “sustainable development”, which already has a legal basis. I am sure that the Scottish Government wishes to be clear in its aims.
Just for clarification, I point out that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines “sustainable economic growth” as
“the upward trend in environmentally adjusted net domestic product (EDP) under certain conditions and assumptions”.
Ergo, it is the rate of growth that can be maintained without exhausting natural resources and creating problems for future generations. I hope that that clarifies it for everyone.
Well, we have all learned something new today.
I would like to extend my support to the themes of supporting sustainable development and the transition to a low-carbon economy. I acknowledge the benefits that are brought to the overall strategy through the close working relationships that have been developed with VisitScotland, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, ClimateXChange and other key stakeholders throughout the consultation process.
In such challenging economic circumstances, it is necessary that we prioritise infrastructure projects that will encourage tourism and inward investment in Scotland, thereby safeguarding jobs and promoting growth. I back the move to decarbonise our transport network and to improve key transport links between our cities.
However, Parliament will be aware that the Scottish Government has already missed its targets for carbon reduction, with expert analysts predicting that every annual target from 2014 onwards will also be unachievable. Bearing it in mind that 40 per cent of emissions are from transport and housing, we can clearly see that the issue is an incredibly important aspect of the planning debate. That is why we need more than just hollow commitments from the Scottish Government on what it is able to deliver, and assurances about the resources that will enable the public and voluntary sectors to achieve the long term-aspirations in the national planning framework.
I am, however, also concerned by suggestions that one in four of our high street stores will disappear over the coming years, as was stated last month in the “Retail Futures 2018” report from the Centre for Retail Research. We must look to our high streets and start the debate on how we can use the planning system to regenerate our town and city centres, in order to address the ever-changing face of our high streets. I am sure that the Minister for Local Government and Planning will be aware of that report and will acknowledge that the figure represents almost 5,800 individual stores, and probably more than 100,000 workers who will be made redundant if no effective intervention is put in place to speed up the recovery of our town centres.
It is because of those facts that l urge the Scottish Government to ensure that it does not take a short-term view of the planning system, because that could have long-term consequences. I truly hope that the third framework will continue in the same vein as the previous planning strategies, and that the Scottish Government will listen to the concerns about the finer points of the strategies that have been placed before Parliament this afternoon.
15:42
I welcome today’s debate on the Scottish planning policy and the national planning framework 3. I have a particular interest in the subject as a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which recently took evidence from the minister on the issue. During the meeting with the committee, the minister gave some insight into the finer detail of the proposals and was able to offer us some useful assurances on the direction and focus of the development of the SPP and NPF3.
I want to take this opportunity to praise the minister on the decision to consider NPF3 and the SPP in tandem. I am sure that I am not the only one who has become bogged down in the ever-more confusing raft of planning legislation and guidelines when dealing with constituency cases. Efforts to co-ordinate guidelines will undoubtedly—I hope—bring greater clarity.
With regard to NPF3, I commend the focus in the draft that has been placed on economic benefits and jobs during consideration of proposed developments. It is important to place economic factors at the heart of all major decisions, particularly during this time of austerity.
I also welcome the nod to the regeneration of town centres, although, as I highlighted to the minister during a committee meeting in May, I caution that proposing major new developments might conflict with the Scottish planning policy’s focus on existing town centre regeneration, which Anne McTaggart has just highlighted. In particular, I note that the proposals for Ravenscraig, for example, might conflict with the Scottish planning policy. In fact, the developments would effectively create a new town that would bridge the geographical gap between the existing towns of Motherwell and Wishaw, which could create greater problems for those towns. I raised that point with the minister at the committee meeting in May, and noted that the current proposals for the Ravenscraig development include housing, education facilities and the possibility of a new retail centre.
I appreciate that the proposed developments will bring massive benefits to communities throughout the central belt, but so too would developing areas that have, throughout recent years, suffered significant decline. I am not suggesting that we halt all major new developments, but any potential conflict should be ironed out in the new framework, and a better balance found.
During the minister’s appearance at the committee, I also sought assurances that the guidance that was issued in December will be more precise about how planning authorities make decisions. For example, I noted that autonomous decision-making between local authority areas has, at times, been inconsistent, particularly around the erection of wind turbines. That leads to confusion and uncertainty for people who live in communities on the borders of neighbouring authorities. Clarity for all concerned is crucial as NPF3 and the SPP are taken forward.
I was pleased to hear from the minister that the Scottish Government will work with community council liaison officers and Planning Aid for Scotland to ensure that communities are provided with the help and support that they need to engage fully in the planning system. We are, however, not just talking about communities. It is essential that all who are involved in the planning process, from the Scottish Government to local authority planning departments and developers, work closely together to bring about the speedy disposal of planning applications. The creation of a more cohesive and inclusive approach to the planning process will bring about better efficiency and decision making with minimal delays.
I highlight that point by talking about a discussion that I had with a developer last Friday about an area that has been identified as a community growth area. The developer has been having problems in meeting not the planning department of a local authority but other departments to identify the community gain and obligations that will be on the developer when they go ahead. That is leading to delays in building houses. We need to ensure that local authorities work collectively with developers so that such developments can go ahead speedily for the economic benefit of all concerned.
A good approach to planning can bring many benefits at national and local levels. Bringing planning policy back to communities is an important step forward. The publication of the “National Planning Framework 3—Main Issues Report and Draft Framework” in April 2013, prior to NPF3 being put out for consultation, is a step in the right direction that provides an avenue through which communities that will be affected by proposed national developments can at an early stage make known their opinions.
The fact that NPF3 and the SPP are being put out to consultation simultaneously will, I hope, prove to be cost effective and might limit consultation fatigue, as well as going a long way towards ensuring a more cohesive approach as we move forward. The minister must bring confidence to all those who are affected by planning decisions that their views are heard and taken on board prior to decisions being made.
I thank all the organisations that have contributed to the debate and look forward over the coming months to further discussions on the issues that have been raised today.
Some members have not used up their full allocation of time, so there are a few seconds in hand if members wish to take interventions from this stage onwards.
15:48
I welcome this opportunity to debate the Scottish Government’s on-going work in producing a third national planning framework and updated Scottish planning policy. The third national planning framework is a vital document for two reasons. The first is obvious: it serves as the long-term strategy for the development of nationally important projects that are central to the Scottish Government’s key objectives.
The second reason is that this is the first NPF that has been produced against a backdrop of a difficult financial climate. As a result, the document must have a strong focus on economic growth and on increasing the attractiveness of Scotland for global investment opportunities. To do so, the Scottish Government must ensure that our infrastructure and environment are fit for purpose, so I welcome the consultation process.
The main issues report rightly highlights that housing is a key policy concern because of the projected increase in the number of Scottish households during the next two decades, with the strain being felt particularly in certain areas. One such area is East Lothian in the South Scotland region, and I know that there are particular challenges in sourcing appropriate land for development there due to much of it being high quality arable land. Nonetheless, the land will need to be sourced.
The Scottish Government has blamed the economic downturn for the much lower than expected level of housing development since NPF2 was published. That cannot be overlooked as a factor, but nor can the reduction in the subsidy that is available to housing associations, which has fallen from £70,000 to £40,000 per home. That was a decision entirely of the Scottish Government’s making that has, as was revealed last week, contributed to a 32 per cent reduction in housing association completions.
Would Mr Hume agree that some of the delays to housing developments are the result of local authorities not acting as speedily as they could have to resolve issues regarding development decisions?
I am sure that that is quite correct, but it is also quite correct that housing associations are having difficulty with funding.
When we consider the sharp decline in approvals and starts for homes for social rent, it is clear that attempts to achieve the Scottish Government’s flagship housing target will be further complicated in the coming years of this session of Parliament. I absolutely accept that developers have had difficulty in securing finance, but the Government cannot absolve itself of all responsibility.
I was particularly keen to see onshore wind developments discussed in both documents. As a South Scotland member, my inbox is dominated by concerns about developments throughout my region, some of which are clearly in inappropriate locations. On Monday, I was in Straiton in Ayrshire speaking to constituents who are concerned about plans to erect more than 130 giant turbines in their stunningly beautiful valley.
Local authorities and my constituents are crying out for clear national guidance from the Scottish Government to help to ensure a fairer and more robust planning process. Unfortunately, the draft Scottish planning policy is somewhat weak on that when it insists that
“We remain of the view that planning authorities are best placed to plan for onshore wind at the local level”.
To establish the commendable target of
“at least 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables by 2020”,
then to tell councils to get on with it, when they are inundated with onshore wind applications, is an example of buck passing. I see more and more of the larger developments go straight to the Scottish Government.
If Jim Hume believes that it is not for local authorities to find the right sites, it must be for someone else. Does he suggest that we centralise all decisions on wind farm locations in Edinburgh, or at the reporters unit in Falkirk?
No. We should have a broad consultation and find a good strategy for Scotland, in which we can best decide where wind farms should be, rather than property developers leading the way.
I agreed with the minister when he gave evidence to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee that developments need to be in the right places. However, it is not enough for the Scottish Government to state its “wish” that national parks and national scenic areas remain untouched. That is not a definitive statement. It is time that clear national guidance was produced.
I was pleased to see as a national development the creation and improvement of long-distance paths and trails. Coincidentally, a joint report by Sustrans Scotland and Transform Scotland yesterday highlighted that cycling tourism is worth £240 million annually. I hope that with the plans that are outlined in the document, that could be improved upon significantly. As well as the obvious tourism marketing potential of a walking and cycling network across Scotland’s outstanding landscapes, it would help to promote active travel among Scots and have the dual benefit of promoting healthier and less polluting forms of travel.
There is no doubt that the main issues report has some worthwhile national objectives, such as Ravenscraig, electricity grid reinforcements, the central Scotland green network and improvements to our ports. Those will make Scotland more competitive and should assist in meeting our climate change obligations, which I regret to say we are not currently fulfilling. The failure to achieve our climate change targets for a second time should be a serious concern not only for the Scottish Government but for all of us.
I welcome the focus on transitioning Scotland towards a low-carbon economy, but of course talk is cheap, so the objectives in the document must be followed through with greater commitment and energy than has been displayed thus far, if we are to achieve our legally binding emissions obligations.
15:55
The debate is about an important issue: developing policies, plans and frameworks that will determine the future development of Scotland. As the topic is so wide ranging and our time for the debate somewhat limited, I will restrict myself to discussing a few key issues, including the regeneration of previously developed sites, the role of public involvement in the planning system, and the future of tourism as a growth sector in our economy.
I thank the minister for his appearance at the Local Government and Regeneration Committee in May at which the national planning framework 3 and Scottish planning policy were discussed. Members of the committee, including me, were able to question the minister on key aspects of the future of the planning system in Scotland. During that evidence session, I was pleased to hear the minister state that he wanted a planning system that would
“focus on delivering jobs and growth”
and
“facilitate investment in infrastructure”.
That reflects the Scottish National Party’s 2011 manifesto commitment, which said that
“a more efficient and effective planning system will be good for investment and growth.”
I am sure that that approach will be welcomed by many here today.
At the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, the minister also said that the Scottish Government is committed
“to making a transition to a sustainable, growing, low-carbon economy ... the primary focus of”
its
“proposals for the third national planning framework.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 22 May 2013; c 2151-2.]
As part of that, there must be a focus on areas that were previously developed but which are now, in effect, economically challenged communities. Regeneration is vital for such areas. I was therefore delighted to hear John Pentland’s comments about Ravenscraig and his welcome for Ravenscraig’s inclusion as one of the national development areas.
There are too many such sites in Scotland as a whole, and far too many in the west of Scotland in particular. I am happy that the Firth of Clyde area has been identified in the national planning framework as an area in which major change is happening or anticipated to guide the implementation of the national strategy. Regeneration is one of the key issues for the Firth of Clyde area; the others include green infrastructure and supporting investment in key economic sectors.
As I said, there are far too many areas in the west of Scotland in which regeneration is an issue. We need to encourage investment and development in such areas to breathe new life into their communities. I hope that the focus of the new planning framework and planning policy on economic growth will result in developments in such areas that will stimulate their local economies and bring much-needed employment. It is good to hear the minister talk of removing barriers to planning to help the economic development of our country. I know that, as other members have said, in some local authority areas in the west of Scotland, those barriers have been significant.
It is important that the public’s view is not ignored. I am pleased that the use of charettes in promoting early engagement and intervention is to be rolled out. I am sure that that will help to improve community involvement in the planning process, and I hope that it will ensure that those involved in the local economy and local elected representatives will have significant input in future developments that promote jobs and growth.
We in the Local Government and Regeneration Committee started our regeneration inquiry today, and community involvement is a key issue that arose not only in our discussion today but when we have done other pieces of work. Rather than things being done to a community, we must ensure that the community genuinely has a full and thorough input into what is going on in its area. Without such input, communities will not fully progress.
Public involvement in the planning system is crucial. Enabling local communities to have a say at the pre-application stage, through charrettes or some other process, will help to allay fears and will enable developers to adjust their plans so that local objections are minimised. Such an approach can help to make planning a more consensual activity than it has been in the past, when communities have felt that their views have been ignored.
Tourism is an important element of the Scottish economy and there is scope for more investment and jobs throughout the sector. The main issues report explores how the framework can support sustainable tourism.
I raised with the minister at the Local Government and Regeneration Committee the huge success of the cruise ship market. During the past year, more than £42 million came into the Scottish economy as a consequence of cruise ship tourism. In May, more than 10,000 cruise ship passengers visited Greenock, which demonstrates the extent of the tourism potential in Inverclyde. The industry plays a huge role in bringing in additional revenue to the Scottish and Inverclyde economies, but the port of Greenock will turn vessels away this year, due to a lack of capacity. Discussions are going on between the Scottish Government and the port’s owners and operators, to ascertain whether assistance can be provided. I welcome those discussions. I was pleased with the minister’s response to my questions, and I hope that there will be a successful outcome.
I welcome this debate on the national planning framework 3 and Scottish planning policy, which will help to set the context for a modern planning system, with a focus on regeneration and growth. I am sure that that approach will be successful for Scotland.
16:01
First, I apologise to Anne McTaggart for not thanking her for accepting my intervention earlier.
In the current economic climate, it is more important than ever to ensure that we have a well-considered and detailed planning framework, which will help to support recovery, attract investment to Scotland, create the maximum number of jobs and bring the greatest benefit to our society.
Of course, economic benefits, although they are vital, must not be allowed to undermine Scotland’s natural environment. We must also be mindful of our commitment on and contribution to the reduction of harmful greenhouse gases. The draft national planning framework meets both key requirements—more so than NPF2 did.
I am the member for Cunninghame North, and for my constituents the most important aspect of NPF3 is the removal of any possibility that a coal-fired power station will be built at Hunterston. I have campaigned against the proposal, along with community and environmental groups, for a number of years. Indeed, I contacted every adult in the communities that would have been affected, detailing how they could register their opposition to the proposal, and I submitted a 28-page objection to the Scottish energy consents unit in August 2010.
The application to build the power station generated some 21,000 objections—more than any other application has generated in Scottish planning history. I am happy to say that in the face of such vociferous opposition, and as a result of funding uncertainty, Ayrshire Power Ltd withdrew its application to build the unwanted power plant.
SNP councillors on North Ayrshire Council supported, and delivered, the removal of the potential coal plant from the local development plan. For a host of other reasons, it is now highly unlikely that a similar application will be submitted. However, the possibility remained of great concern to local residents and environmental groups.
Of course, such a decision should not be taken purely on the basis of local opposition. If we consider the proposal in the national context, we can see that its continued inclusion would be contrary to the Scottish Government’s stated objectives.
Paul Wheelhouse MSP, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, recently reaffirmed the Scottish Government’s commitment to combating climate change:
“A low carbon economy is not only essential to address our need to reduce global emissions, but it will bring significant economic benefits and opportunities for our communities, businesses and industry and our environment—that is why we are committed to working with the people of Scotland to maximise those opportunities and address possibly the greatest challenge facing society today.”
I completely agree. Scotland’s emissions have fallen by 24.3 per cent since 1990. We are ahead of the rest of the UK and are now more than half way towards achieving our world-leading target of reducing emissions by 42 per cent by 2020. Therefore, allowing, let alone encouraging, the construction of a coal-fired power station at Hunterston would have been a step in the wrong direction.
On 9 November 2012, I submitted a detailed response to the consultation on NPF3, requesting that a new power station at Hunterston be removed from the framework. I also corresponded and discussed the power station’s removal with the Minister for Local Government and Planning, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth and the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism. I am particularly pleased that the Scottish Government has listened to my concerns and the concerns of my constituents, and that it now does
“not consider there to be a need to retain a new power station at Hunterston as a national development in NPF3.”
Taking the decision to remove any potential for a coal-fired power station at Hunterston from NPF3 will reassure my constituents and will be a great relief to them.
I strongly commend Mr Gibson for his work on the Hunterston coal-fired power station issue, but is not there still a difficulty? We consult on what should be designated as national priorities and he, as one of only 26 individuals, responds to oppose the Hunterston coal-fired power station proposal. However, it takes 22,000 individual objections to oppose the development. Do not we still need to do better on local democratic accountability?
We can always do better—there is a lot of truth in that. To be fair, the application took a very long time to come to fruition. There was a public inquiry and the application was withdrawn before the inquiry concluded. We should, of course, always work towards more democratic accountability.
Regarding energy production and the environment, I was pleased to note that proposals that are being brought forward may outlaw the construction of wind farms in Scotland’s national parks and designated scenic areas. Onshore wind energy is clearly an important part of Scotland’s progressive blend of energy production, but that step is certainly a welcome development that will do much to ensure that Scotland retains its place as one of the world’s most scenic nations.
I attempted to bring forward a member’s bill to protect Scotland’s regional parks from such developments, but found after two years of deliberations and discussions with the non-Executive bills unit that the reserved provisions of the Electricity Act 1989 made that impossible. I am therefore keen to hear from the Government about how that protection for national parks will be achieved and whether it will consider extending such protections to regional parks, which surely should be classified as scenic areas and deserve to be safeguarded.
On another matter that relates to my constituency, I am pleased to note that the updated airport enhancements incorporate wider plans for investment, including improvements to surface access, airport facilities and the creation of master plans for Glasgow and Prestwick airports. I am confident that improvements to both those key transport hubs will help to ensure that Scotland continues to punch above its weight in relation to foreign direct investment, will help to mitigate the adverse impact of air passenger duty on those airports, and will create and sustain jobs.
Commitments to high-speed rail between Glasgow and Edinburgh and south to London are also extremely welcome. When they are delivered, they will offer Scotland a competitive advantage by creating a rail service to serve those who wish to do business in Scotland as well as the general public.
Against the backdrop of cuts to public spending and reduced private investment, the measures in NPF3 are to be welcomed. They set out a clear and ambitious development strategy for the next 20 to 30 years. The framework delivers on a number of fronts. It will help to create jobs and make Scotland an attractive place in which to do business and invest. Further, it is conscious of Scotland’s unique scenic landscapes and mindful of our global responsibility to help to protect our environment for ourselves and future generations.
16:08
I should first confess that, over the past seven years, I have probably done less on planning than on any other policy area, apart from rural affairs, but I enjoyed reading the national planning framework 3, the Scottish planning policy consultation document and the Official Report of the minister’s appearance before the Local Government and Regeneration Committee.
I certainly welcome much in the documents. I think that it is generally admitted that the most significant change in Scottish planning policy relates to onshore wind and that everybody welcomes what is proposed. I also welcome what the national planning framework says about the need to develop infrastructure for the expansion of offshore wind. I particularly thank the minister for giving Leith a mention on page 25, and certainly look forward to offshore wind manufacturers starting in Leith—I hope before too long.
In general, the new national developments should be welcomed, because nearly all of them seem to be related to renewable energy and climate change. That does not take away from some of the wider concerns about climate change that Patrick Harvie and Sarah Boyack have raised.
The issue of housing has been raised. The more generous allocation of land that is recommended for housing is another important part of Scottish planning policy.
Although in general I welcome the documents, it is one thing to have a policy and another thing to implement it. When the minister gave evidence, he said that the
“interpretation of planning policy across the country is too variable.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Regeneration Committee, 22 May 2013; c 2163.]
That raises the issue that always runs through planning debates of the tensions between different players in the planning system, which featured strongly in debates around the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. There are tensions between the community, local authorities, the Government—and, in 2006, there were also the relative powers of the Government and Parliament. I should tell the minister that, at the time, his back benchers, including Bruce Crawford, argued that the Parliament should have the final say on the national planning framework—I am not sure whether Bruce Crawford would say that today.
I suppose that my own prejudice would be to give communities a bit more power and influence. There was progress on early involvement in the 2006 act, with the participation statement in the NPF and a lot of engagement, but communities would probably like a bigger say.
Perhaps it will surprise the minister and others if I say that—possibly—a bit more power should sometimes be given to the Government. I was concerned when the current Government weakened the requirements on local government to notify the Government, which were quite strong in 2006. Such requirements keep a check on what can sometimes be an arbitrary local government power. Perhaps Sarah Boyack will forgive me for reminding members—I suppose that I am telling a lot of people who were not here at the time—that in 2006 she supported a community right of notification. Indeed, she voted against me and the Government of the day on that very matter—something that I know would never happen with SNP back benchers these days. However, she had a point, because we need checks and balances in the system, and it worries me that nobody can really stop local government doing something that it wants to do.
The other tensions are around land use. I have only time to mention tensions around economic development, housing and green space.
Patrick Harvie and Sarah Boyack made good points about the way in which “sustainable economic growth” has replaced “sustainable development”, which is the term that is used in the 2006 act. Economic growth is also a stronger material consideration in Scottish planning policy. Obviously, economic growth is important—I am not altogether with Patrick Harvie on that one—but there is a fear about economic growth crowding out other interests. I am slightly nervous about that, along with Sarah Boyack and Patrick Harvie. I am not quite sure why we had to change the language.
I very much welcome the strong statement about green space on page 39 of the Scottish planning policy document. However, interestingly, there is sometimes a tension between housing and green space. I have an example of that in my constituency, at city park, which used to be the football ground of the Spartans Football Club. It is hard for me to oppose a housing application, because we need more housing. However, although there is all the land at the waterfront in my constituency that could be used for housing, it looks as if a very highly valued piece of green space might disappear. I think that the words on page 39 are important—it is really a presumption against developing open space. However, how do we make sure that local government follows Scottish planning policy? That leads back to the point that if there are no notification requirements and there is no community right of notification, how do we enforce Scottish planning policy?
I have only one minute left, but I want to mention Margaret Mitchell’s amendment. Enforcement is very important: it is key to maintaining public confidence. I have another issue in my constituency—this time on enforcement. Recently, one of the tram contractors used Shrub Place, which is part of Leith Walk, to dump all sorts of materials, which caused local residents great distress. It had no planning permission for that activity so, as is routine, it was asked to put in a planning application. In the meantime, the work continued. That concerns me. The public would feel much better if work had to stop when someone did something without planning permission. I seem to remember from the 2006 act that a stop notice can be put on, but that never seems to happen. Enforcement is very important. I am glad that the minister has accepted Margaret Mitchell’s amendment.
I was going to say something about unconventional gas extraction, but I see that my six minutes are up. I tend to agree with what Patrick Harvie said about that.
16:14
I am very glad to speak in the debate on the draft national planning framework and the draft Scottish planning policy document.
I grew up in Lanarkshire. Of course, New Lanark is one of the most famous successes of place making in not only Scotland but, possibly, the world. It was Robert Owen’s vision and included a factory, workers’ housing, schools, a place of worship, shops—which were at the forefront of the co-operative movement—and the very first workplace nursery in the world.
Today, New Lanark is acclaimed as a world heritage site and Lanarkshire is proud of its heritage and of New Lanark’s place in our industrial history. Everyone in the chamber would recognise that it is highly unlikely that an enterprise such as that could get planning permission in Scotland today, as it was built on an undeveloped and unspoilt site, but it is right that that is so.
National planning framework 3 should give us the balance of needs in our country, and I do not have a problem with the phrase “balanced growth” in the motion. I do not have a problem with balance at all. If planning is about anything, it is about balancing our economic and environmental needs and the future of our country.
I welcome the themes in the policy document, which focuses on sustainable economic growth, with more emphasis on economic benefits.
The proposed planning system will support well-designed, successful, sustainable places where people want to live, visit and invest. The national planning policy and framework will support ambitions for a low-carbon economy, which is crucial for our country’s future, and the planning system will support ambitions to respect, enhance and make responsible use of our natural and cultural assets. The policy should be one that continues to focus on sustainable economic growth, but with more emphasis on economic benefits. That is key. I do not have a problem with the wording around this issue; it is clear that both draft documents give us the opportunity to achieve the right balance for our country’s future.
The Government has mentioned taking a holistic approach to considering the relationship between buildings, natural resources, movement and utilities, all of which are key to getting the balance right. The focus should be on positive place making, of which New Lanark is one of the most famous and most successful examples. The approach is based on six qualities: distinctive, welcoming, adaptable, resource efficient, safe and pleasant, and easy to move around and beyond. I look forward to the forthcoming policy on architecture and place, which will also show how we can encourage good design and create the kind of places that we would all like to visit and to live and work in.
As a member for Central Scotland, I echo Margaret Mitchell’s comments about what the policy will mean for Central Scotland as a region. I welcome the Grangemouth and Peterhead carbon capture and storage schemes, the central Scotland green network, and the national cycling and walking network, which will cover all three local authorities in Central Scotland.
I hope that members will not mind if, as someone who was born and brought up in Motherwell, I also focus on something that has already been mentioned quite a bit this afternoon—the Ravenscraig site. It is not the white canvas that Robert Owen had in New Lanark, but it is perhaps the nearest thing that we have to that in Scotland. It is the biggest brownfield site in Europe, and the development of Ravenscraig will give us a great opportunity to get the balance right in our community—a balance that will meet the needs of the existing towns of Motherwell and Wishaw, and provide economic opportunities.
It is 30 years since Ravenscraig closed, and the initial plans for the site included a new town centre, major leisure facilities, housing, business, industry, hotels and a railway station, as John Pentland mentioned—the whole package of new town community facilities and road improvements. It is a hugely ambitious project, but something that is desperately needed in Lanarkshire. When we consider what businesses and industries might come back to Lanarkshire, I hope that we will be able to build on the history of technology and engineering in the area, perhaps looking to opportunities in the oil and gas sector and in new technologies.
The site is not empty at the moment. Motherwell College has developed its residential unit as a circle, alluding to the Ravenscraig towers. The regional sports centre has already been used for the international children’s games, and is a possible training centre for the 2014 Commonwealth games. It is interesting that the shape of the steel coming out of the manufacturing process has been captured in the design of those buildings at Ravenscraig.
Sarah Boyack mentioned innovation. The most exciting thing at Ravenscraig at the moment is the Building Research Establishment innovation park, where six sustainable and carbon-efficient houses are going to be built. BRE is working closely with the college to ensure that the skills to build sustainable housing developments will be acquired by people in the area.
I welcome the policy as a great opportunity. If we get the balance right, it will be wonderful for Scotland. I finish with a note of optimism from Robert Owen. In 1816, he said that
“no obstacle whatsoever intervenes at this moment except ignorance to prevent such a state of society from becoming universal”.
I believe that that is the case, and that we can achieve it.
16:20
Given that I am speaking 15th this afternoon, I have to register that there may not be much new to say. However, I shall try to find something and I shall succeed, I assure members. That is not to gainsay all the things that have been said before. I am entirely supportive of the documents and congratulate the Government and the minister on what they have achieved. Nevertheless, I will bring up perhaps half a dozen issues to which we should give some thought.
I echo Sarah Boyack’s comments about combined heat and power, which I do not think that anybody else has picked up on. In Aberdeen, what is essentially an aircraft engine is attached to an alternator and the heat that is generated through that process warms the adjacent tower blocks. That is a standard bit of technology that has been around for my entire professional lifetime, but it is the kind of thing that we should be trying to put in areas of high-density housing. We know where they are, and I suggest to the minister that we must find ways of progressing that. I know that it is burning gas, but we will be burning quite a lot of gas for quite some time and it is an extraordinarily efficient way of generating electricity and using what would otherwise be waste heat to deliver low-grade heat into buildings. It is entirely the right way forward thermodynamically and I commend it to the Government.
Rather nearer my constituency is the Aberdeen western peripheral route. I do not think that it has yet been pointed out in this debate that it has seemed to take for ever for that project to begin. I wonder whether the Government has given any thought to the timetabling of the work. I understand that it is going through the courts, but it is not entirely outwith the Parliament’s remit to consider how the courts deal with such things and whether, in the future, something like that should be allowed to take so long. I think that we need to address that, please.
Becoming distinctly more parochial, I now focus on Montrose harbour, which appears in the documents. I ask members to register the thought that the throughput through Montrose harbour is less than 1 million tonnes a year. That appears to be a cut-off point for the map, but there is also a relevant cut-off point for the funding that the trans-European transport network generates. I have here a document from John Paterson of Montrose Port Authority, who explains that a threshold of 1.5 million tonnes of cargo applies to European funding. That appears to be a completely arbitrary level, but it means that a relatively small but quite substantial port such as Montrose does not have access to European funding, which is really quite important in the context of its development. I wonder whether the Government might give that some thought as well, please.
I reflect on my days as a councillor in Dundee and on Mike MacKenzie’s comments on planning resource. I do not wish to criticise Dundee City Council—we tried quite hard—but I am conscious that, because of a lack of resources, we sometimes struggled to do things at speed that our constituents wanted us to do. The minister said that more money has gone into this, but I think that we should be setting some serious targets and ensuring that they are met so that planning matters are progressed on time. Given the minister’s local government experience I am sure that he has that in mind, but I would like some reassurance that that will happen. The planning process should not hold anybody up unnecessarily.
I would also like confirmation of something that I thought that I heard the minister say about sustainable economic development, which has been the subject of much discussion. It is fundamental that economic development is to be taken as a material consideration. However, I return to something that Stuart McMillan and others have pointed out: there needs to be community involvement in any planning application, because there are many communities around the country that feel that they have been told about economic development that will result in X hundred jobs, but by the time the process has finished, X hundred jobs have disappeared because some small part of the application has been forgotten about and the slightly more efficient bit has been left behind. We need to ensure that we play fair with communities in that process.
A map of long-distance cycling and walking routes is in NPF3—it is map 11. In my constituency, much of the route is on main roads. We should be moving to a position in which it is possible to go for a cycling holiday around Scotland without having to go anywhere near a main road, although I recognise that some bits of the route will have to use minor roads, which, in some respects, can be just as dangerous to cyclists as main roads, because drivers do not expect to find them there. We need to have such a vision. I would like it to be possible to get off the train at Montrose—as I will do later tonight—get on the bike and cycle to Brechin, which is where I would like to stop, and then up Glen Esk into the Cairngorm national park. That ought to be perfectly possible. It would not cost a fortune to make that feasible. I commend that thought to the minister and the chamber.
My final reflection is on town centres, of which there are five in my constituency. I think that I am not the only one who is noticing that shops are closing in towns—even ones that are not large—some of which will never reopen. That is simply because we now shop online and use supermarkets, which will deliver. I know that a fund is being worked on to ensure that such premises can be brought back into residential use. I am sure that that is a good thing, but we need to work on it fairly quickly, because there are vacant premises that will not reopen as shops.
I am sorry to end by making a few asks of the minister.
We move to closing speeches.
16:26
I apologise to the Presiding Officer if some of the language that I used earlier might have been unparliamentary. I must admit that I thought that we had to go rather further than I did to cross the line, but any offence that was caused was entirely unintentional.
I am grateful for your apology nonetheless; thank you.
I think that I said in my opening speech that planning was sometimes not thought of as a particularly sexy subject, but I admit that the planning nerd in me has got a bit of a kick out of the debate—I have enjoyed it very much.
It is natural that there are things in the documents that we are discussing that all members have been able to welcome, and I hope that my amendment reflects the fact that there are things to welcome from my perspective. The central Scotland green network has been mentioned, as have sustainable and active travel, renewables and the electricity grid. Although many of us will always come to the chamber and say that we want more or that we want a strong focus on such things, I put it on record that there are aspects of the documents that I welcome and which I hope will be strengthened rather than downgraded in the final draft.
However, as I have mentioned, there are aspects of the documents that need to be questioned. For example, I question whether the Captain project—the coal gasification plant—will be fully CCS compliant from day 1 of its operation and whether it will be prevented from continuing to operate if the CCS technology does not achieve what it sets out to achieve. I also question the role that the Scottish Government sees unconventional gas extraction having. It will add ever more to our stocks of fossil fuels. That is a threat, not an opportunity.
In transport, the emphasis continues to be on aviation expansion. In addition, some detail is missing. I mentioned the issue of individual turbines, which I look forward to pursuing with the minister. I had hoped to hear something about the Government’s target for community-owned land and community-owned energy. A clearer emphasis in the planning system on achieving those things might have been helpful.
I want to reflect on Sarah Boyack’s speech. I very much welcomed the thrust of it and the critique that she offered of sustainable economic growth. I welcome her to that argument, which I have been making since the Government introduced the term to its programme back in 2007, and I would be happy to share some of my best lines with her, if she is interested. I particularly enjoy describing sustainable economic growth as the Government’s central contradiction, because as well as being inherently unsustainable, the relentless pursuit of GDP growth fails to achieve economic justice, equality or human wellbeing when it takes place in already wealthy societies.
I also welcome Sarah Boyack’s comments on housing and energy, including heat, and hope that the minister will reflect on that argument before producing the final proposals for both documents.
However, from a Green perspective, it is understandable that many of the arguments in which I have involved myself in this debate have been about the issue of growth. It is clear that from now on economic growth considerations will trump—I use that word quite consciously—environmental considerations. After all, as happened in the Menie estate scandal, when big money talks, the Scottish planning system seems to roll over.
My former colleagues from the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, Mike MacKenzie and Chic Brodie, took issue with the Green analysis of growth. After calling for the Government to use clearer language, Mr Brodie attempted to define the term “sustainable economic growth”—and after listening to his effort, I can only advise the minister to look elsewhere for a plain English consultant. Mr Brodie also suggested that before we can achieve social and environmental objectives we need economic activity to generate wealth. My response to that is no—before we can sustain any kind of economy, we must come to live within the ecological limits that the planet itself has laid down. Before we can have a good society, we must challenge the selfish values of the current economic model.
Kenny Gibson offered a definition of sustainable economic growth from, I think, the OECD. I will read the Official Report to see his precise form of words, but I am pretty sure that the Government does not report its own economic progress in line with that definition. However, the OECD offers a rather shorter definition of the term as
“that which sustains human and environmental as well as economic capital.”
Although that is interesting, I think that there is very little difference between that and sustainable development. If so, I have to question why sustainable development has been replaced by growth as the central objective in the planning system.
That said, I want to twist this argument into something more positive. The Government’s other NPF—the national performance framework—has positive scope to move us beyond GDP in the same way that the Government’s adviser Joseph Stiglitz has argued that the world itself should move beyond GDP. That is why it is so troubling to see growth enshrined not only in policy but in law, as the Government is doing in the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Bill, before that debate on alternatives to GDP progresses.
Frankly, if the Green Party, of all people, did not challenge that notion, I would wonder what it was for. Mine might be the only amendment tonight that is not supported by the chamber and it might well be that the Greens will be the only people voting against the Government motion, but as a wise philosopher once said:
“It’s not that easy bein’ green”.
I think, especially at the end of a debate such as this, that it is the only colour I want to be.
Thank you very much—and thank you for your contribution to the OED.
16:33
First of all, I welcome not only the publication of the two documents before us but much of their content. Although I disagree with certain points, the broad thrust of what they contain appeals to the Conservative side of the chamber.
That said, I must take issue with one or two speakers. Mike MacKenzie’s comments about the use of plain English stood in stark contrast to the way in which the minister opened the debate, which gave me the clear impression that this morning his office had been playing buzzword bingo. The jargon, the planning-speak, the clichés, the alliteration and even onomatopoeia were to the fore in great scale but through the mist I could detect a number of issues with which I could agree.
I and many other people in the debate have talked about the commitment to town centres. Our town centres form a vital part of our country; in fact, Scotland can be defined by its smaller and medium-sized market towns and, if they are allowed to die, the very heart of Scotland will disappear. The most heartfelt plea for Scotland’s town centres came from Anne McTaggart, during whose speech I got the clear indication that some shop to live while others live to shop.
An interesting discussion took place when the minister himself suggested that some people took the view that the NPF document was all about wind farms. We all know that, in fact, it is just mostly about wind farms. The issue that was raised—significantly by Patrick Harvie—was about where we choose to put wind farms and some of the minister’s language on that is the kind of language that we have been asking for from successive planning ministers for years. However, I am not entirely convinced that this process will deliver strategic guidance on the timescale that many of us would like, even now.
On the subject of whether a single wind turbine constitutes a wind farm, I am no expert in that area. However, I can look back at this Parliament’s history and point out that, during the passage of the hunting bill, we received advice that one dog could in fact constitute a pack. I do not know whether that point can be carried over.
On the issue of grid enhancement for the distribution of electricity, it is essential that we all back the principle of grid enhancement as a key element of what we try to do in the long term. We know that it is not easy; the experience of the Beauly to Denny line and the planning process that that had to go through will make it extremely difficult for us to progress grid enhancement as quickly as we would all like. Although there are those of us who are concerned about the massive spread of wind farms, it is of course the case that if we are to develop environmentally based electricity sources in the long term, Scotland’s grid must be enhanced. For that reason, we look forward to rising to that challenge as well.
An interesting point in the debate was when Sarah Boyack seemed to suggest that we are still in a recession. I do not believe that Scotland is in a recession; I believe that we are doing extremely well. In fact, the employment figures that were announced earlier today indicate that Scotland is even doing rather better from the far-sighted and ambitious policies of George Osborne than the rest of the United Kingdom is. That advantage might have been accrued from the fact that we here in Scotland were freed from the dead hand of Labour control a full three years before the UK was and, consequently, we had a head start.
I move on to an area that is perhaps critical of the Government. Margaret Mitchell spoke at some length about the enforcement issues that surround planning and it would be remiss of me if I did not raise the issue that I have raised before in relation to this subject—that of timescales. The efficiency of the planning system in Scotland is vital to our economic wellbeing. We all know that planning applications can be contentious and even divisive in communities, but the situation that we find ourselves in is that planning applications—major planning applications in particular—are taking longer and longer.
Anything that was deemed to be a major development in the third quarter of 2012-13, which are the most recent figures that I have, was taking 36 weeks. Individual times ranged from eight weeks right through to an astonishing 84 weeks. That is 84 weeks of frustration and delay, bringing with it the continuing risk that another local economy might miss out on investment. Processing times, including legal agreements, make further grim reading, with an average of 103 weeks. That is almost two years to process an application, which is not fair on investors or on the communities that may be opposing those developments.
As I bring my remarks to a conclusion, I wish to say more about unconventional gas. I believe that the documents describe it as an opportunity. I believe that it is an opportunity that we must explore in order to create the jobs and wealth that gas production can bring, as well as providing the opportunity to cut energy costs. With that said, I will bring my remarks to a conclusion—
I would be grateful if you would.
At five o’clock tonight, the minister will have the support of the Conservatives, whether he likes it or not.
16:39
I am delighted to follow that.
My point, which was a serious one, related to housing—even though new jobs are being created as we speak, the housing market has not turned round. I was told at a recent council briefing that the social housing investment process is broken. A key problem is that, although there is aspiration across the country and land that has been cleared and has planning permission, the developers cannot afford to put houses on to the plots. That is a huge issue in Edinburgh.
The minister will be aware that having a five-year land supply that is viable, capable of being developed and marketable is a difficult issue. On paper, that may look totally sensible but, in Edinburgh, for example, where the local plan is about to be delivered, the council had thought that it was about to get thousands of new houses from the waterfront development as Malcolm Chisholm mentioned, but there is now a massive shortfall from that site. That will not be made up easily anywhere else in the city—certainly not instantly.
I understand that the local authority will be asked to increase dramatically the amount of available land. The developers say that they can build just more than 5,000 houses in the next five years. However, there is land for 42,000 houses. There is a gap between land that is identified for development and land that has planning clearance but where there simply is not the money to develop it. In Edinburgh, we could end up with a free-for-all. However brownfield sites are described—they are also described as formerly developed or gap sites—they will not be as attractive as green-belt land.
The minister needs to take a sharp look at that issue. We must ensure that there is not a free-for-all. We must get away from the position in which land is available and identified for development but the developers cannot make it work. That goes to the heart of issues to do with public and private sector investment.
What has happened with the Scottish Government’s investment in housing is not helping. I hope that the minister will agree to meet me. The issue was raised by the City of Edinburgh Council in its quarterly planning briefing. It also came up in a discussion that we had with a number of local authorities around Edinburgh, because other authorities do not want to take up Edinburgh’s housing slack. It has become a regional issue but, at the end of the day, no one will win because the land will not become available for development and we will not get the industry development or the houses that we need.
Planning is seen as the problem rather than the solution. Planning cannot be the obstruction to development; it must be about how we get the right development and a positive process for shaping our communities for future development. That is about all our aspirations for development.
There is a particular requirement on members to ensure that our communities understand that there is a national planning framework and that, once the Government has agreed the priorities and the matter has been through the parliamentary process, the projects in it will in effect be approved. Therefore, the framework is a major issue for our constituents. Although there has been innovative work, I am not sure whether all our constituents who live in affected areas will be aware of the framework, so there is a challenge in that regard.
An issue that I will focus on is what the tools are for the job and who is carrying out the planning. A number of members have talked about the need to have faster planning and decision making. There is a tension here, to which Malcolm Chisholm referred. It is correct to have a much more up-front investment in planning consultation, but applications still need to meet the demands of communities, the planning system and the development industry. Reconciling those demands when they are different is the job of planning.
We must highlight that, although the minister is asking planning authorities to move faster, they have to do so with fewer planners. There are also fewer people in other council departments to support them. A Unison survey on planning staff came out today, which talks about the reduction in the number of planners in our local authorities: 60 per cent of planners who were interviewed described the level of cuts as “major” or “severe”; 53 per cent believe that there are further major or severe cuts to come, and 87 per cent believe that the overall service that is provided to the public is being “adversely affected”. Therefore, there are major challenges in delivering the kind of planning system that we want.
We need a planning system that is responsive and swift yet deals with ever more complexity. However, there are major challenges in delivering on all the objectives in the draft Scottish planning policy document. To provide the right kind of infrastructure for development, for energy, for digital communications, for transport or for reduced CO2 emissions requires a process whereby applications are tested against all those objectives. That will not always be achieved through a tick-box exercise but will often require a proper evaluation and judgment. The bit at the end that Malcolm Chisholm talked about—the occasions when the Scottish Government needs to look at decisions that have been rubber-stamped at local level—also needs to be right.
All of that comes back to what the purpose of planning is. As I said in my opening remarks, sustainable development should be our starting point and economic growth must be part of that process. Whether we are in a recession or just in difficult economic times, I do not really care, but the point is that thousands upon thousands of young people are not getting jobs. Young people with five standard grades, who historically would never have got those standard grades, are entering a labour market where there are no jobs. We need to take economic issues into account but, as I said in my opening remarks, economic issues cannot trump everything else.
Patrick Harvie rose—
The draft SPP document starts off with “Sustainable Economic Growth” and then goes on to “Sustainable Development”, whereas those should be the other way round. Climate change also needs to be factored in as part of that process.
I will take a brief intervention from Patrick Harvie. Presiding Officer, do I have eight minutes?
Yes, but you are in your last minute.
Short-term considerations may be different, but we are passing policy that will last for the long term, even after the recession ends. Is there not a danger that growth will then become the priority when it need not be?
My point is that, regardless of whether we are in good times or tough times, the decisions need to be right because they will be with us for the long term. We need to create jobs and to support industry, but we need to do that on the basis of thinking through the impacts. That is why the policy should not start off with sustainable economic growth, which cannot be defined properly. Sustainable development, which is included in legislation at international, European, UK and Scottish levels, should be our starting point. This is not about being against development but about being in favour of the right development and ensuring that we get that right for future generations. The planning system must be about the long term as well as the short term.
When planning gets it right, it delivers exciting things, such as national parks, the west Highland way and the cleaning up of the legacy of industrial sites in Falkirk and Stirling. Given the right resource, planning can deliver a huge amount, but it needs the right objectives—
You should be drawing to a close, please.
The draft Scottish planning policy document is the place to get that framework right.
16:48
We have had a very good debate on national planning framework 3 and the Scottish planning policy.
Let me begin by following on from what Sarah Boyack said. I agree with her that planning decisions are for the short, medium and long term. We should not make decisions that affect only the short term without considering the long term. That is why the aspirations that are set out in NPF3—a transition to a low-carbon economy, becoming an area in which people want to invest, providing connectivity and having quality places—are important. I believe that there is a strong sense of sustainability and sustainable development within that.
On the economic cycle, clearly it would be beyond frustration to have a planning system that did not enable sustainable economic growth at this time to ensure that we build those quality places. All the speeches this afternoon, including the Greens’ comments, which were fully expected, help within that debate.
Let me be clear that the importance of sustainable development has not changed in the new policy documents. The shift is towards a greater understanding of economic impact in the planning process and in the weightings that are used. Frankly, I find it bizarre that, in some determinations on applications, the economic impact has not featured. Imagine hearing the great news today that there is more money for wage support schemes and youth employment to get young folk back into work, only to be told that it will take two years to process the planning application to realise that economic impact on the ground. The planning system should enable the right development in the right places.
Patrick Harvie rose—
I think that I took three interventions earlier but, to come on to one of Patrick Harvie’s points, the reason why I use the word “balance” is that I believe that there is a balance between the economic impact and environmental issues. I have said clearly that development is not necessarily at the expense of the environment. In fact, the investment and planning proposals will help us to realise our aspirations on the low-carbon economy through, for example, the proposals on housing, transport and particularly the decarbonisation of energy. I welcome the support for that in the renewables policy, which has various new proposed categories to give the clarity that Jim Hume is looking for and to provide planning support for local authorities while still empowering them to find the right and most appropriate sites within the national parameters.
A couple of technical questions were raised. Margaret Mitchell asked about the town centre external advisory group report. The group will report imminently. We are waiting for it to conclude its report before the Government responds. My understanding is that we are a few weeks away from that, or perhaps even less. Therein lies an opportunity to extend the sequential approach in planning. I apologise to Mr Johnstone for having to turn to such language, but we have to expand the sequential approach to ensure that town centres give protection to more than just retail. Town centres will change from their traditional patterns and will have new functions. There will have to be some diversification and repopulation and so on. Therefore, the planning guidance on town centres will, I think, be strengthened.
There has been far more engagement on NPF3 than there was on earlier iterations—NPF2 and the original planning framework—which is to be welcomed. For example, this debate will inform the policies. I have been out personally to meet the public to discuss some of the priorities. There is an expectation that local planning priorities and designations will be consulted on, which includes through the community council liaison officers.
On further opportunities, we are considering other sources of energy, but environmental concerns and assessments must be taken into account. Those sources are not seen as an opportunity in isolation, as we must consider the environmental issues. Heat maps provide an opportunity to more adequately connect heat source with provision and demand in a way that has not been done before. There are opportunities for transport connections and for various networks to connect Scotland and enhance the opportunities for offshore renewables.
On renewables, some have said that the greater protection for the environment that will be afforded by the new policies will mean an overconcentration in areas that do not have that greater protection. However, that proliferation will not necessarily occur because, with repowering as well as the offshore opportunities and the changes in technology, one does not necessarily lead to the other. We can meet the renewables targets without some of the scare stories and fears about proliferation coming to pass. We are also consulting on cumulative impact and on extending the separation distances from communities.
There are further technology opportunities, such as permitted development in relation to digital technology. I recently spoke about that at the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which has considered some of the issues in detail.
On green infrastructure, there are fantastic opportunities to connect urban and rural communities and to connect ecosystems with economics. That is why the central Scotland green network is such a welcome and on-going project in the proposed developments.
I suppose that it is coincidence that we had 14 priorities in NPF2 and we have 14 in NPF3. Some of the previous ones have not continued, because they have been completed, have reached their consenting regime or are no longer appropriate, as Kenny Gibson explained in relation to Hunterston. Another example is the Commonwealth games projects, which will be concluded by the time we get to the implementation of NPF3 in June 2014.
The proposed national developments have been welcomed in this debate. I did not hear much dissent in relation to those that are proposed, including Ravenscraig. Some members have recognised that that represents an opportunity for the surrounding communities, not a threat to them, although I understand Mr Wilson’s concerns. We have an opportunity to regenerate a part of Scotland that desperately needs it, bringing in not only housing, but education, a town centre and associated innovation.
The grid infrastructure enhancements to enable us to achieve our renewables and energy capacity targets are a wonderful opportunity.
Could the minister update us on progress on building that grid infrastructure? I understand that there are currently some significant delays in the system.
Clearly, I cannot prejudice individual planning decisions. The framework creates the planning hierarchy that gives certainty for investors and planners about the infrastructure that we need in order to meet our ambitions as a nation. That, in essence, is what these documents are about.
Other new features include Dundee waterfront, with a connection between it and the city; the regeneration of Ravenscraig, which we have touched on; Aberdeen harbour, which has reached capacity and has room for expansion to enhance the economic vibrancy of the area; the Grangemouth investment zone; the high-speed rail connections; and the strategic airport enhancements, which are vital to allowing us to use airports as dynamic places in which we can do business, connect to the world and realise our local economic growth plans.
Performance is clearly an issue in the planning system. That is why we have focused on the four pillars of planning reform, with a focus on the plan and on simplification and streamlining to take out of the system that which adds no value. On improved performance, to turn to Nigel Don’s point about resources, an increase in planning fees should encourage better investment in the planning system, which I believe will make a difference in delivery on the ground and will improve the timescales.
There is no dilution of the policy with regard to brownfield sites and regeneration—indeed, we have strengthened it. We have not used the term “brownfield sites”; we have used the term “previously developed land”. However, as with many issues in this consultation, if people feel that there are gaps or that amendments are required, we will consider that language, as we want to ensure that there is not even the perception of a shift in the policy.
We are focused on the climate change agenda and on using the planning system to achieve our climate change targets, which are the most ambitious in the world. We want to focus on architecture, place making, quality and the environment and we want to realise the aspirations of our country in a way that engages with the public.
On enforcement, the system is only as good as the enforcement powers that we are willing to use, although that is more of a matter for local government. However, by accepting the amendment, I hope that we show that we will take it seriously.
There is a question of balance. We argue over definitions. Chic Brodie made a comment about language and planning, but I think that these documents are clear, concise, positive and dynamic. They set the vision for Scotland and will provide a platform from which we can inject energy into other Government strategies to ensure that we can continue on the road to recovery in Scotland, increasing employment, developing sustainable economic growth, protecting the environment, achieving our targets, including our renewables targets, and creating the kind of country in which we all want to live, work and invest. As the minister with responsibility for planning, I will do my part to ensure that the system contributes to that in a positive way.