Glasgow (Green Space and Leisure Facilities)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1172, in the name of Robert Brown, on the loss of green space and leisure facilities in Glasgow. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so very quickly.
I hope, Mr Brown, that your words fall on less stony ground than mine just have.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the continuing loss of green space in Glasgow and other areas due to planning encroachment and, in particular, the threat to the future of bowling greens, tennis courts, football fields, allotments and similar facilities and believes that the Scottish Executive and local authorities should review land use policies, strengthen the protection of green space and leisure facilities, enforce local planning policies, conservation and other planning protections stringently and halt the development for other purposes of green space and leisure areas in pressurised urban communities.
It gives me great pleasure to have secured the first members' business debate of the summer term, especially on the important issue of green space. I am glad that members from different parties have stayed for the debate.
The Scottish Executive's document "Scottish planning policy: SPP1. The Planning System" states that the aim of the planning system is to guide
"the future development and use of land in cities, towns and rural areas in the long term public interest …";
"to ensure that development and changes in land use occur in suitable locations and are sustainable …";
to
"provide protection from inappropriate development …";
and
"to maintain and enhance the quality of the natural heritage and built environment."
Moreover, it says:
"Involving local communities, business interests, amenity organisations and others is essential to help shape a sustainable Scotland."
Although those aims are superb, a presumption in favour of development lies behind them. After all, the document goes on to say:
"Planning policies and decisions should not prevent or inhibit development unless there are sound reasons for doing so."
When she launched Scotland's first national planning framework on 1 April, the minister—Margaret Curran—said:
"Get things right in planning and we make real progress on the country's economic competitiveness, environmental protection and social justice. Get things wrong and we will fail to deliver our commitment to sustainable development."
I say to Parliament that, on protecting green space and leisure facilities in Scotland, we are getting it wrong. Indeed, we are getting it especially wrong in Glasgow.
Like other members, I am increasingly worried about the continued threat to, and loss of, Glasgow's green spaces. Developers are targeting football playing fields, bowling greens and tennis courts, as well as smaller grassed areas and gap sites across the city. In fact, the phenomenon is common to many towns and cities in Scotland. In the west end of Glasgow, there is hardly a postage-stamp sized piece of ground that has not been built on. An editorial in the Glasgow Evening Times said recently:
"Unless a better balance is struck between preservation and … progress, the west end will have no open spaces left."
I am grateful to the member for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. As an MSP who represents part of the west end of Glasgow, I want to make a point that the member might agree with, which is that having more green and open spaces instead of more buildings in the west end may represent a positive step towards retaining more families who currently live in tenement properties and who do not have gardens. We need more families in that part of the city.
Pauline McNeill has made a valid point that I have no doubt other members will build on during the debate. The issue of green space cuts across a range of social and community matters. Slowly and steadily, green space in Glasgow is disappearing before our very eyes, largely to provide residential accommodation, although not necessarily the kind of accommodation that Pauline McNeill was talking about.
Ground that is zoned for residential development can be worth many times the value of ground that is zoned for leisure or recreational use, and councils are told to maximise capital receipts by selling off surplus land. There is also an insidious process by which developers help to pay for community facilities on the understanding that they can build on the rest of the site. That is not always a bad thing, but we need to watch such moves carefully.
Scottish Executive and Glasgow City Council policy documents by the tonne go on about the importance of green space—the "green lungs" of the city—for exercise and recreation, for the environment and for children and old people. They wax lyrical, as they should, about the enormous assets of the city parks, which we inherited from our Victorian ancestors. However, the National Playing Fields Association lists 12 major sites of recreational use in Glasgow that are known to be under threat. That list does not include bowling club sites that have been reported in recent weeks to be the subject of attractive offers. In one case, the incentive to club members was said to be as high as £100,000.
Without trying too hard, I have compiled a list of 15 green area sites that I know of, or which have been reported in the press in recent months, in respect of which planning permission for housing has been granted, or where there is a serious threat that that will happen. The list includes, in one capacity or another, Hillhead bowling and tennis club in Newlands, where planning permission for 15 flats has been granted to Cala Homes, and threatened developments at Partickhill tennis courts, Dowanhill tennis club, Woodend bowling club, Novar Drive scout hall, small sites in Great George Street and Hindland Street, Cathcart Road back park, Holmlea Road back park, Croftfoot playing fields and the former North Kelvinside Secondary School playing fields.
Does Robert Brown accept that one of the pressures on Glasgow City Council is the need to hold council tax payers inside the city boundaries, and that part of the problem is the level of council tax in Glasgow that results from pressures and demands in the city? Does he recognise that another way of dealing with the problem would be to support, through an independent review of local government finance, a more appropriate funding distribution of moneys from the centre, which would properly acknowledge deprivation and release at least some of the pressure that is currently on Glasgow City Council when it considers proposals that will encourage council tax payers to stay inside the city boundaries?
I accept Johann Lamont's point as far as it goes, but it is on a slightly different issue to that which we are debating today. The matter of the local government funding formula involves all sorts of complications. Nevertheless, she is right to say that the fact that council tax is higher in Glasgow is a relevant consideration.
Nobody is against building much-needed new houses, but they should be built on brownfield sites wherever possible. Almost 9 per cent of Glasgow's land is vacant or derelict and half of it has been vacant since 1985 or earlier. That land should be the first port of call for new housing—we cannot go on indefinitely cramming more houses into popular areas to the detriment of the quality of the life of a community.
What can we do about the situation? The presumption in favour of development should be abolished in respect of green areas in pressured urban locations.
Will Robert Brown take an intervention?
I have taken enough interventions.
Councils should not be required to dispose of land—indeed, there are strong arguments in favour of their developing land banks. Councils are, however, in the front line and there are differences in policy and practice where that is appropriate. For example, Edinburgh local plan's protection of the city's green space is far more robust—on paper, at least—than Glasgow's city plan. There is a practice of letting football fields and other recreational or green areas decay—not necessarily those that are in the hands of the council, but such areas that are in the hands of owners generally—to the point at which they are a nuisance to local residents. Their condition is then used as an argument for getting rid of them for housing.
The issue of third party or community rights of appeal against unsuitable planning decisions will not go away, despite the orchestrated campaign from some parts of the business community, which have failed to recognise that the job of the planning system is to provide a proper balance between different interests, not to process development applications willy-nilly, regardless of their effects on communities. That is why the Executive has a commitment to consult on the issue of new rights of appeal in narrowly defined circumstances. I hope that, in due course, the Deputy Minister for Communities will speed up the planning system, but I also hope that she will stand firm on the protection of communities.
It seems that council planning committees in Glasgow are not as rigorous as they should be in enforcing planning and conservation protections that are designed to safeguard communities. Indeed, a coach and horses has sometimes been driven through those planning protections. I want to hear from the minister today that she will take that on board in the planning review. It is time to call a halt—the reform of planning law must strike a better balance between housing development and protection of leisure and green areas, and existing national and council policies should be more rigorously enforced. The trouble is that land, once built on, is gone for ever.
I congratulate Robert Brown on securing this evening's debate, which is the first members' business debate in the new term.
I want to pick up on a couple of things that he mentioned, especially with regard to the consultation process and the third party right of appeal. If we go forward with the third party right of appeal, I believe that that will go some way towards addressing the concerns of the public at large, who will welcome the fact that the Executive is listening to them on that matter. I look forward to the end of the consultation process on the current planning document, but I remind the minister and members that my bill for such a right of appeal can be resurrected if there is not an overwhelming response in favour of a third party right of appeal.
Like Robert Brown, I am worried by press reports that the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and others are very much against the third party right of appeal, as if the only democratic right is for developers, but not for the public. I regret that such organisations use the newspapers and cross-party groups in Parliament to put forward those views. I hope that the Official Report of the debate can be sent to the Scottish Parliament cross-party group for construction. I received an e-mail from one of the members of that group—he is not an MSP—who said that the third party right of appeal had been discussed at a cross-party group meeting and that it was called a "meddlers charter". If the report of this debate would not automatically be passed to it, I would like it to be passed to the cross-party group on construction. I had always thought that cross-party groups did not have political back-up; I hope to tell the convener of the group that in person.
I will get on to the matter in hand. Robert Brown and Johann Lamont mentioned greenfield sites. Johann Lamont made a point about council tax; I agree with what she said about the small pocket of council tax payers. However, we should look towards affordable housing, which is where brownfield sites—as Robert Brown mentioned—come into play. We should promote brownfield sites more vigorously than we do greenfield sites. I know that there is special dispensation to bring forward brownfield sites so that people can build on them, particularly if there are chemicals and so on there, but I would like to see more emphasis being placed on councils promoting brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites.
I do not want to name all the areas that Robert Brown named—I am sure that other members will also name some of them. An area that has not been mentioned is St Augustine playing fields in the Milton area, where lots of people train to play in football teams and so on. Those playing fields still languish after the community fought hard to save them after a public inquiry, but nothing has been done to the land and it is earmarked for housing. I think that Robert Brown mentioned Thornwood park. A vigorous campaign was run by residents there—Robert Brown, Pauline McNeill, myself and others were at the public meetings on Thornwood park—but once again developers won and housing has been built there. Yorkhill park is another area where there was a right of way, but developers took no notice of that and housing will be built there.
We must be concerned about the issue not only in the city centre but in other areas. Greenfield sites are a bonus for people who live near them because their kids can go out to play there and they can walk their dogs there. Some folk do not particularly want to belong to a club, but they want to play football or whatever in a field. We should consider particularly the situation in the west end of Glasgow where land is at a premium—any tiny site there gets built upon. That is sad not only for people who live in the area but for people who pass through it. The buildings are so crammed in that it is unbelievable and the traffic and so on causes concern for everyone.
I was amazed to read about Kit Campbell's recent report in the newspaper. We should bear it in mind that Kit Campbell is an adviser to the Westminster Government and to the Executive on improving public green spaces. His idea for improving public green spaces is to sell off poorly maintained and under-used football pitches, as he puts it, for housing development and land for homes. That is what an adviser to the Executive and to the Westminster Government has to say, so we should ask some questions about that. If we are to sell off land—as Kit Campbell suggests—what is there to prevent people from saying that amenities are surplus to requirement without having a public inquiry?
This is a very good debate; I welcome it and thank Robert Brown for securing it.
I congratulate Robert Brown on raising this important issue and for making an excellent speech.
Robert Brown is absolutely right to say that axing green spaces and leisure facilities—such as bowling greens, libraries and the like—is counterproductive and flies in the face of most Scottish Executive policies, such as lifelong learning, reading together, healthy living and so on. In fact, his speech was so good that I will send it to every one of his Liberal Democrat council colleagues on Inverclyde Council who, as we speak, are axing leisure facilities such as bowling greens and libraries. That flies in the face of a host of Executive policies: lifelong learning, reading together, healthy living and so on.
The fact that Robert Brown so roundly condemns actions such as those of his Liberal Democrat colleagues on Inverclyde Council—the same colleagues whom he defended gallantly in the chamber on 22 January—might force those councillors finally to see sense.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
I am sure that Robert Brown agrees that those councillors' actions have been impetuous, to say the least. They have closed libraries in the most deprived areas of my community, thereby denying underprivileged children access to books, to a safe place to study and to information technology. Those kids do not have the luxury of being able to buy the books that they want or the luxury of a bedroom of their own, equipped with a personal computer, where they can study.
Fresh from that decision, Robert Brown's colleagues moved on to take bowling greens away from those kids' parents and grandparents. In areas such as Inverclyde, where public health is poor, it is vital that we help people to keep active—especially people who are in their middle and later years. Bowling is an ideal way of keeping active, so to take away bowling greens undermines a key plank of the Executive's healthy living strategy.
Labour closed swimming pools.
I see that I am causing some irritation among members, but I will press on.
Residents are up in arms about planning development on the beautiful Inverclyde green belt near Inverkip, but the allegedly cash-strapped Inverclyde Council has found up to £60,000 of ratepayers' money to pay a specialist planning lawyer to help to force through its plan in the teeth of fierce local opposition. I am delighted that Robert Brown has given us a chance to air such vital matters this evening.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. I am about to finish.
As a man of principle, Robert Brown rightly speaks out when he disagrees with decisions in Glasgow and he bravely sets aside parliamentary protocol when he wants to praise Inverclyde Council for decisions with which he agrees. He is a Liberal in the best traditions of that party and a man of note and influence in those circles—
On a point of order—
I am therefore sure that he will accept my invitation to come to Inverclyde and explain—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member made a personal accusation against me when he said that I have set aside parliamentary protocol. Mr McNeil should either specify what he is getting at or withdraw the allegation. It is very unfortunate that a members' business debate should be used for such a tirade.
The member is being very thin-skinned. Mr McNeil is expounding the parliamentary protocol of vigorous debate and he should be allowed to conclude his remarks. No doubt there will be opportunities in the future for Mr Brown to get back at him for what he said.
I am happy to conclude at this point.
Perhaps I can, uncharacteristically, return the debate to a more consensual basis.
I congratulate Robert Brown on bringing this important debate to the chamber. However, I suggest to him that certain aspects of the matter might not be quite as simple as he perhaps made out. He was certainly correct to highlight the difficulties that have arisen, in particular in the west end of Glasgow. There can be absolutely no doubt that there have been instances in which open spaces in the west end have been lost—Robert Brown narrated quite a few examples. I speak with some degree of bias, as my home overlooks one of the few open spaces that are left in the west end, but the impact of the loss of open space in the west end has undoubtedly been considerable and has detracted from the lifestyles of many people. That is unfortunate.
However, one is of course required to consider the circumstances in which some of that land has been lost. There can be no doubt that local authorities have taken some extraordinary planning decisions. If people are to have a reasonable quality of life, they should not live with one another cheek by jowl. As a result of one recent successful planning application in the Partick area of Glasgow, a series of town houses has been constructed in an area that those of us who come from Glasgow would call a back court. I shudder to think of the sort of outlook those houses have. I find it odd that open space should be lost in Glasgow through the granting of such limited planning applications.
Perhaps the most important point that Robert Brown made was about the failure to use brownfield sites. Local authorities should be encouraged to use such sites. As has been said, the west end of Glasgow has become overloaded, but what about the east end, which has suffered a dramatic population loss for probably 30 or 40 years? East of Glasgow Cross, all the way along to Bridgeton, there are large open spaces that could be built on, returning a community to that area and bringing in commerce and activity, thus restoring the area and making it one in which people would want to live.
Robert Brown and Sandra White highlighted the loss of open space for recreational purposes—football pitches, for example. That is true but, unfortunately, in many instances those pitches were not terribly well utilised. Mind you, the argument could well be advanced, and it would have some validity, that kids nowadays are not prepared to do what I and probably Duncan McNeil did in our youth—playing on red blaes pitches and facing the excruciating agony of wiping soda ash off one's knees at the end of the game. It is because those football pitches are in such a disgraceful state that they are not used, are lost and are built on.
It will be very interesting to see what the Executive comes up with in the review of planning legislation. The utilisation of brownfield sites should be encouraged and it should be acknowledged that some areas—not only those in the west end of Glasgow—have become far too overdeveloped. It will be interesting to see whether the Executive has proposals that will mitigate the damage that has already been caused.
I congratulate Robert Brown on bringing the motion to the chamber. In supporting the remarks of Robert Brown and others regarding Glasgow, I would like to stress that the problem goes wider. Even in small Highland towns and communities, gap sites are disappearing; worse than that, we see houses going up in gardens. I always think that it is very sad when a new house appears in the middle of an old garden of an old town house. As a keen gardener, I believe that human contentment is much related to having green space or even to having space to plant flowers, vegetables or whatever. Even if that space is as small as a window box, a patio or a roof garden, it can make a tremendous difference.
I want to highlight for the minister a good example of this problem in the Highlands. It is not from my constituency, but John Farquhar Munro will vouch for it. In Dingwall, the county town of Ross and Cromarty, the Highland Council has rewarded the requests and the aspirations of the community by deciding to build a new secondary school—a new Dingwall Academy. The trouble is, under the rules of public-private partnerships, the council cannot build the new school on the exact location of the present building, which is in a shocking state. Instead, the council is going to build the school in some playing fields adjacent to the old school. The hue and cry in the royal burgh of Dingwall is something to be heard. The issue is massive. It may be across the constituency boundary from me but, my gosh, people feel awfully strongly about it. The Ross-shire Journal goes on and on about it. It is maddening that a technicality on PPP rules means that we have to go down a route that causes a lot of upset. It would be so much better if we could build the new school on the exact location of the present school, which is in a high and prominent position, overlooking the burgh.
I will conclude this very brief speech by saying that the problem that Robert Brown has raised is a wide problem. It hits small communities such as my home town of Tain similarly to the way in which it hits Glasgow, as described by Robert Brown and others. We should take a Scotland-wide audit of this issue, considering planning law and PPP or whatever rules. One thing is for certain: when we lose a green space—a green lung that is so important to human beings—it is generally lost for ever.
I, too, thank Robert Brown for bringing the debate to the chamber and I greatly appreciate the chance to speak in it. Our thanks are due also to Glasgow's media. The letters page of The Herald has helped to keep the issue to the fore over the past few weeks and months.
Over the past year, since the election, many cases relating to the issue have come up in my mailbag and in my e-mail inbox. I am sure that that is true for other members as well. Even before the election, I was involved briefly in the Thornwood park campaign, which Sandra White mentioned. In fact, that might have been the first time that she and I met. I did not wear suits much in those days, so I do not know whether she recognises me from then. I was astonished and appalled by the arrogant way in which a vibrant, active group of local campaigners was treated. They made good use of their park, but their views were ignored. The developers showed virtually no willingness to engage with them. Why should they? They have a profit motive to consider. However, I heard deeply offensive comments from the developers about the local residents, which I suspect is typical of what happens in many cases.
Hogganfield, which is on the border with North Lanarkshire and is within Glasgow City Council's area, has been described as a rich
"natural habitat for a … variety of wildlife with the wooded area being home to deer, rabbits, foxes and endangered small bird species."
According to the environmental impact assessment for Hogganfield, the loss of the wildlife resource
"is a direct, irreversible impact but although the impact on the deer is high, the overall significance in terms of nature conservation is low as … deer are not considered to be a valued resource for conservation."
It seems that quality of life for human beings in Glasgow is not particularly highly valued either.
Robert Brown mentioned the situation with Cathcart back park, which typifies what happens in a lot of places. A group of local people have ideas about what to use their park for and want to improve it so that it becomes a valued local asset. They have been hassling the council for a long time—years, in some cases—because their area has been neglected and has been allowed to fall steadily into a state of disrepair. At times, it seems almost as though there is a conspiracy. The worse we treat a piece of land and the more neglected it becomes, the less concerned and anxious people are to protect it, so that when a development is planned people have less enthusiasm to object.
What are the causes of the problem? According to Charlie Gordon, Glasgow needs a bigger middle class. He once explained that to me as his diagnosis of the only and most significant economic problem facing Glasgow. It is amazing how people speak to one differently when one does not wear a suit; put a suit on and they become more circumspect all of a sudden. As a result of the idea that Glasgow simply needs a bigger middle class, any postage-stamp sized piece of land is sold off to build the housing to attract them, but there is not the environment to keep them there once they move in.
There is a pressing need for social housing. If that was what was being built, I would have to accept the need to free up land, although I would want brownfield and derelict land to be used. However, a lot of the luxury houses that are being built are out of even my price range as an MSP, as I found a few months ago when I was flat hunting. It is simply ridiculous that building luxury houses is our priority.
The loss of green space has consequences for health and physical activity. Duncan McNeil mentioned the health impact, especially in the context of the increasing obesity problem. He valiantly neglected to condemn Glasgow councillors in the same way as he condemned his own councillors.
I do not live in Glasgow.
Another time, perhaps.
Stress is also an issue. We live in a society in which people are being made to work ever longer hours, often in ever more boring jobs. It is well documented that even a few minutes spent in green space on a daily basis markedly reduces stress.
There is also a traffic impact. In Glasgow, we are looking at a 40 per cent increase in traffic. All the luxury developments come with ample car park spaces. Why not have some car-free developments and promote the idea of reducing Glasgow's traffic levels?
The loss of green space also leads to the loss of community cohesion. People want to have somewhere to take the kids to play and to walk the dog. They want to have somewhere to meet the neighbours. When they move to an area, they want a community space other than a pub in which to meet the people with whom they live and share a city. We should do as the wiser generations before us did and leave a richer and greener Glasgow for the Glaswegians who come after us.
I, too, congratulate Robert Brown on bringing this debate to the chamber. Thank you, Presiding Officer—I mean Deputy Presiding Officer. I have been away for too long. I cannot remember who anybody is.
I came to politics—or maybe politics came to me—in a park. I was not sitting having a picnic and reading Marx and Engels; I was standing against a bulldozer or staying up a tree for as long as I could. That was in Pollok park, when the M77 was being ploughed through the area. When we tried to protect that valuable park, we were told that the road would go through only a small area of it. However small the area was, it was right on the periphery of the built-up area of Pollok where I grew up. The park was valuable to us for some of the reasons that Patrick Harvie mentioned. We could go there to experience peace and quiet. As children, we were not sure that that was what happened but, looking back, I am sure that it was. Now the children in the area where I grew up cannot go to the park and experience the peace and beauty without having to find their way across an extremely dangerous, fast and noisy motorway.
The wild proposal to construct the M74 northern extension, which might happen depending on the result of the inquiry in Glasgow—I hope that the report will be negative—is indicative of the Executive's attitude to green spaces in a city that is quickly losing such spaces. Since the Executive came to power in 1999, how many roads have been built and how many parks and green spaces have been lost? If the M74 extension is eventually constructed, it will cost at least £500 million, and possibly £1 billion. How will we justify that to the people of Glasgow and Scotland?
Pollution knows no boundaries. The rate of asthma in Scotland in children aged 13 or 14 is the worst in the world. More than 37 per cent of Scottish youngsters who are 13 or 14 experience asthma symptoms. I have developed asthma in the past two years. More than 1,200 people in Scotland died from asthma between 1990 and 1999. Those figures are appalling and worrying.
Let me return to Pollok park. Ambient noise is a huge problem, as Jamie Stone said earlier. When we lose green spaces and replace them with huge roads such as the M74 northern extension, which will carry 110,000 cars per day through built-up communities, we inflict on young people who play or live near the area a great deal of stress because they need to shout louder to communicate with one another in the playground or street. That stress makes things more difficult for children and gets them into a cycle of stress from an early age. We should consider how to create peaceful green spaces in which people can de-stress and be at one with nature so that they do not have to get up a tree—
I am glad that Rosie Kane mentioned being up a tree. She has de-stressed by climbing a tree; good luck to her—I am sure that I could not do that in my physical state.
Rosie Kane talks about traffic noise from motorways. Does she agree that planting trees can go a long way towards getting rid of the noise? I do not want to wax eloquent about trees, but they are beautiful things. Could not some city authorities consider the grants that are available from the forestry authorities?
Is Jamie Stone suggesting that we should plant trees next to motorways?
Yes. Grants are available from statutory authorities to plant trees next to motorways or on the edges of parks. We should consider that.
It would be a great idea not to cut trees down in the first place, and then we would not need such grants at all. Some people have said recently that I am oot ma tree, but that is another stigma that I will deal with during the next four years. I do not agree that we should cut down trees and then borrow money to replace them, but we often find ourselves in such bizarre situations.
We can always trust Jamie Stone to bring a giggle to the Parliament—good on you, mate. It is important that we have a giggle in debates, but it is also important that we take good care of Glasgow. Glasgow, our dear green place, is fast becoming a grey, hard health hazard. The Parliament and the Executive have the power, if they have the will, to do something about the bulldozing of Glasgow and the replacing of green spaces with posh flats that have two parking spaces. Such measures do not help the city or Scotland and they certainly do not help the world. I do not want to end up back up a tree, so I ask the Executive to stop the M74 extension and do something sensible in Glasgow.
I congratulate Robert Brown on securing the debate and thank him for stimulating discussion on an issue that clearly has a great deal of resonance with many members. The choice of debate comes as no surprise, as correspondence on open spaces, particularly playing fields, features regularly in MSPs', and indeed in ministers', mailboxes.
Too many detailed, specific points were raised in the debate for me to cover them all, but I will attempt to cover the issues that were raised. I say to Jamie Stone that I am not sure that the specific subject of trees is in there, but we will see.
The planning system performs two key functions in relation to open space. First, it protects areas that are valuable and valued. Secondly, it ensures the provision of an appropriate quality of open space in, or within easy reach of, new developments. Through the planning system, the Executive is fully committed to the protection and enhancement of the land and water resources that are required for Scotland's sport and physical recreation. However, primary responsibility for such protection lies with local authorities. The Executive's role is to provide the legislative framework, plus guidance and advice to local authorities on how to fulfil their commitments. Robust planning policies are required to safeguard established open spaces, playing fields and access routes that contribute to local community needs and enjoyment.
National planning policy guideline 11, "Sport, Physical Recreation and Open Space", was published in 1996. It recognised that Scotland has a wealth of long-established public parks, and that councils should be mindful of their responsibility to pass them on to successive generations. NPPG 11 addresses the land use implications of sport and physical recreation and encompasses aspects of the informal recreation that takes place in urban open spaces as well as in large areas of countryside. The underlying aim of NPPG 11 is to safeguard playing fields and sports pitches by discouraging development where it is likely to conflict with local needs, either now or in future.
I entirely understand the words that the minister is saying, which sound good, but if that is not what is actually happening—if land is being sold and is being built on—then it does not matter what NPPG 11 says, does it?
It very much matters what NPPG 11 says, because that is the framework within which development will take place.
The Executive's planning advice note 65, "Planning and Open Space", which was published early in 2003, goes further on the matter. It gives advice on the role of the planning system in delivering high quality open space and in bringing about the practicalities of what I think Patrick Harvie is looking for. It sets out a method for local authorities to adopt and adapt in preparing open-space strategies. It also gives examples of good practice in providing, managing and maintaining the open-space resource.
Open-space strategies help local authorities to analyse the different types and uses of space in their areas, to set out locally derived standards for the provision of new spaces and to establish appropriate management arrangements for existing spaces. At least half the local authorities in Scotland are now working on open-space strategies, and they are working with Scottish Natural Heritage and Greenspace Scotland on those exercises. SNH has made some funding available to councils for that.
Scottish planning policy 3, "Planning for Housing", which was published last year, notes:
"New housing development should not be located on open space which contributes to local community needs and enjoyment."
Land disposal decisions by planning authorities should be based on a wider assessment of local provision and need. All of that gives Scottish ministers the opportunity to decide whether to call in an application for their determination or to allow the planning authority to determine the application itself.
I was interested in what the minister said about calling in applications, because I am not aware of Scottish ministers calling in any local applications. Indeed, I understand that it is not the practice of officials or ministers to call in applications for a purely local issue, as opposed to doing so for something like a big shopping centre development. Is that not the problem here?
It is correct that the Executive supports a planning system that requires local authorities to make the most appropriate decisions for their local areas. The Executive involves itself where there is a national issue. Between 1997 and 2004, 11 such cases were notified and two planning applications affecting playing fields were called in. That figure might appear to be low, but it reflects the fact that sportscotland will often enter into negotiations for the provision of alternative sports pitches for an area. When that is achieved to sportscotland's satisfaction, it withdraws its objection, thereby removing the need for planning notification to ministers.
I believe that I have demonstrated that the Executive has in place a robust framework for the protection and enhancement of green spaces, playing fields and sports pitches. That is essential if we are to have sufficient facilities in place to support our efforts to meet the targets in "Sport 21", which is the national strategy for sport in Scotland. Sportscotland plays a vital role in the delivery of that strategy. My ministerial colleague, Frank McAveety—the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport—and I have every confidence that sportscotland fulfils its role in line with the Executive's policy on playing fields and sports pitches.
I am well aware of the many claims, some of which were highlighted during the debate, that huge numbers of playing fields are being lost to developers. Some playing fields have been lost, but in many cases—even in Glasgow—that relates to the replacement of old mineral and blaes pitches. Those have had a long and useful life, but few would disagree that their day has gone and that they are not appropriate for modern-day use.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am winding up.
It can also be the case that disposal of all or part of a playing field of limited value can release funds for the enhancement of remaining fields and facilities. The key is to ensure that replacement fields are of at least equal quality and accessibility to those that are being lost.
The partnership agreement states that the Executive will review planning guidance to set strong minimum standards for including public open space in new developments. That reinforces our prior commitment to review planning policy on open space. We expect to commence work on that commitment soon. That further strengthens the policy and guidance framework that I have already outlined.
Scotland's open spaces are an invaluable asset that is fundamental to our quality of life, as has been said throughout the debate. Through the planning system, the Executive is fully committed to the protection and enhancement of Scotland's valuable and valued open space and to ensuring the provision of appropriate quality in, or within easy reach of, new developments. Again, I congratulate Robert Brown and I am sure that many of us will continue to take an interest in the issue that we have debated.
Meeting closed at 17:48.