Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Official Report 559KB pdf

---

Petition

---

National Scenic Areas (PE1655)

Agenda item 5 is consideration of a public petition. PE1655, which was submitted by Christine Metcalfe, on behalf of Avich and Kilchrenan community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the process for designation of national scenic areas and to consider increasing the number of NSAs in Scotland to protect the natural landscape and support the tourism sector.

Before referring the petition to this committee on 26 March, the Public Petitions Committee received oral and further written evidence from the petitioner, as well as written evidence from the Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage. It recognised that, given that this committee had concluded its evidence taking on the Planning (Scotland) Bill, there would be limited scope for the issue to be considered during stage 1 scrutiny of the bill. In fact, there will be no opportunity for it to be discussed during stage 1 scrutiny, except perhaps in the stage 1 debate. Of course, there is nothing to preclude individual MSPs from lodging amendments, if they so choose, at stage 2 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill, should it reach that stage.

I invite comments from members on what action, if any, they wish to take in relation to the petition. There are two options that we could consider, and I am not precluding others. The first option would be to undertake further work on the petition. If we decide to do so, we should consider what further work we should undertake. Secondly, we could note and close the petition, recognising that the stage 1 report has already been agreed to and that any MSP could lodge amendments at stage 2.

The text of the petition does not seem to reflect what is intended. It seems to me from reading the detail of the petition that the whole point of it is to restrict and reduce the number of applications relating to wind turbines. If that was the intent, the petitioner should have made that much more explicit in the petition. Therefore, I take the view that we should note and close the petition.

Are there any other views?

Section 50 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 lays out the provisions for designation of national scenic areas. Subsection (1) gives Scottish ministers the power to designate such an area and subsection (4) lays out the matters that Scottish ministers are to take account of in making such designations.

The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the process of designation. It does not suggest what the scope of that review might be or, in particular, what elements that currently have to be taken account of in designating NSAs should be looked at again. As Mr Gibson said, it appears that some of the motivation for the petition is to provide a stronger statutory framework within which to inhibit the development of wind turbines.

The letter from the Scottish Government makes it clear that it is not minded to review the process. It does not see the need for a review, and I do not have sufficient evidence to suggest that the process as laid out needs to be revised.

As the convener made clear, the petition relates to planning provisions. Stage 2 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill is coming up, and it is open to any MSP to lodge amendments if they wish to change the process or any of the provisions in section 50 of the 2006 act. I encourage the petitioners to get in touch with MSPs to discuss how that might be done. In due course, if any amendment is lodged, Parliament and this committee will take a view.

I do not think that there is much more that we can do. I suggest that we note and close the petition, recognising that the Planning (Scotland) Bill is going through Parliament, that the petition relates to planning provisions and that there will be scope over the next eight months or so to make amendments in this field if anyone feels that that is appropriate.

It is also worth noting for the benefit of the petitioner that it is not just MSPs who are members of this committee who can lodge amendments at stage 2; it is open to all MSPs to do so.

Members have no further comments. The mood following the two comments that have been made and the nodding heads suggest that we should take the second approach, which is to note and close the petition and make the petitioner aware of potential opportunities for amendments at stage 2 or stage 3 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

Do members agree to take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

We now move to agenda item 6, which we previously agreed to take in private.

11:59 Meeting continued in private until 12:30.