Chamber and committees

I thank Finlay Carson for securing the debate, and start by agreeing with him that it is time for much-needed upgrades on the A75 and A77. We have campaigned for such upgrades for years. I agree with so much of what Mr Carson said, and we have spoken about the A75 and A77 many times in previous debates and questions in the Parliament. The upgrades are needed to improve those main arterial routes and they should be done on the grounds of safety and efficiency.

My condolences go to the families of the people who have lost their lives on those roads. Those losses show the absolute need for safety to be a primary concern and the reason for improvements to be made.

I also pay tribute to the A75 and A77 action groups and welcome their continued campaigning efforts.

We have now seen the publication of the Scottish Government’s STPR2, as well as the UK Government’s commitment to providing additional funding specifically for the A75. Mr Carson mentioned that I wrote to the UK Government. Part of the rationale for doing that was that the infrastructure investment—the cost of widening or dualling the roads or whatever we need to do to them—would be a phenomenal amount of money and Scotland cannae borrow under the current fiscal arrangements, so I was asking for that option.

I take Willie Rennie’s point that it is difficult to build on brownfield sites. That is one of the challenges that I have found. Does he agree that we need to enable our laws to support local authorities to do whatever they can to address brownfield sites?

I was up on my feet earlier attempting to intervene. We have talked about derelict sites, and Paul Sweeney made a valid point on VAT. You said that planning is completely—

Investment has been made in infrastructure in the south-west of Scotland. I never said that that was impossible.

I lodged an amendment to the motion today, not because I disagree with Mr Carson but because I believe that the motion would benefit from more detail. While Mr Carson’s motion rightly cites the need to improve the A75 and points to recent road accidents, including the most recent one in the village of Crocketford, it does not acknowledge the commitments that the Scottish Government has made for the A75 in STPR2. The motion also doesnae call for timescales for the improvements to be carried out. STPR2 includes many important recommendations for the A75 and A77 improvements that many, including the A75 and A77 action groups, have been calling for, for many years.

Ah am no disagreein wi the Opposition here. I also get a lot in my mailbag about these things, so I think that we need to work together to look at how we can lobby for improvements to those roads.

We know that STPR2 has considered

“improving junctions and enhancing overtaking opportunities”.

Looking at the time, I do not think that I will.

We need to consider widening carriageways and realignment to alleviate pinch points and so on.

The STPR2 includes bypassing the villages of Springholm and Crocketford, as well as improving Cuckoo Bridge roundabout in Dumfries, which is a wee bit further east than Mr Carson’s constituency. It is worth mentioning that Springholm and Crocketford are the only two villages in the UK through which a major European route goes directly, so the recommendations for bypasses for the villages are extremely important.

Instead of focusing on negativity about the time that those recommendations have taken to come forward, I want to focus on their implementation, although I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer.

I know that transport is devolved, and in the absence of borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament, funding from the UK Government could further enhance the commitments that have been made in STPR2. I would therefore be grateful for an update from the minister on the timescales for investment in the A75 and A77.

A couple of years ago, I proposed that Dumfries was made a city. Part of that commitment would involve better infrastructure investment to connect cities to regional roads. However, Oliver Mundell opposed that proposal. Does he not think that we could have considered working together on that, to improve infrastructure investment in our main town in Dumfries and Galloway?

The member said that planning is completely devolved, but VAT isnae, and it is an inhibitor for developing sites. Will the member reflect on that?

I am pleased that we are having this debate on national planning framework 4, which clearly focuses on empowering communities to make change, and I support the motion.

The revised draft NPF4 lays out sustainable policies to guide Scotland’s net zero planning approach for the next decade. I have been actively involved in NPF4 in two specific areas, which I will focus on in my speech: vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, especially in our rural towns, and permitted development rights. The minister has been very supportive of my position on both of those matters.

I will turn first to vacant, abandoned and derelict sites, which is an issue that I brought to Parliament’s attention just before the recess. The legacy of Scotland’s industrial past means that almost a third of the Scottish population currently live within 500m of a derelict site. There are 11,000 hectares of derelict land, which is equivalent to 9,000 football pitches. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee took evidence on the fact—research shows this—that living near an eyesore or a blighted or derelict site affects the mental health of a community, so the benefits of addressing derelict sites are obvious. The Scottish Land Commission says that heels are being dragged when it comes to bringing about the change that is needed. It also says that the task of addressing derelict sites has been dumped on the “too difficult” pile. It is interesting that the commission believes that the issue is seen as being too big, too complex and too expensive to fix. That simply isnae true. We need to stop telling ourselves that it cannot be done, and we need to recognise that transforming derelict sites is a massive opportunity.

Paul Sweeney makes a great point. I will come on to issues around owners.

Many proposals in NPF4 make reference to policies that will address derelict sites, such as incentivising brownfield regeneration, including for derelict sites, which will allow brownfield sites to be transformed into housing, community spaces or whatever the community chooses. I can give two examples of regeneration: the Clyde gateway project, which the minister visited recently, and Cunninghame Housing Association’s transformation of the vacant primary school in Lockerbie into a community hub. I would be happy to facilitate a visit by the minister there, too.

The revised NPF4 makes it clear that Scotland will not compromise on the climate crisis and empowering communities. We have many derelict sites in Dumfries and Galloway and in the Scottish Borders, such as the George hotel and the east pier in Stranraer, the Interfloor/Gates factory in Dumfries, the Central hotel in Annan, the Mercury hotel in Moffat and the N Peal and Glenmac buildings in Hawick, as well as many others. In trying to address those sites, I have faced numerous challenges with the owners and local authorities. Councils respond to me by saying that they have limited powers, and it is hard even to elicit a response from registered owners. One of the challenges is in figuring out what we can do about that.

I want to highlight what local authorities can do, and then I will show how that is enhanced by NPF4. Local authorities can issue a waste land notice that requires an owner or a responsible person to take specific action on a site. If the responsible person refuses, the local authority can carry out the work itself and claim back the cost from the owner under the Town and Country (Planning) (Scotland) Act 1997. Under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, councils can issue a dangerous buildings notice. Additionally, the local authority or community can make a compulsory purchase of a building or land under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Those are not unsubstantial powers, and the Government is committed to introducing compulsory sale orders in the future.

Miles Briggs rose—

I am sorry, but I think that my time is up.