Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Official Report 472KB pdf

---

Current Petition

---

Wild Land (Protection) (PE1383)

Item 3 is consideration of a current petition. We are considering PE1383, by Helen McDade, on behalf of the John Muir Trust, on better protection for wild land. As previously agreed, the committee will take evidence from Andrew Thin, who is the chairman, and Ian Jardine, who is the chief executive of Scottish Natural Heritage. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.

I welcome our witnesses to the committee—Mr Thin is a well-kent face. I am glad to see you both and I thank you for coming along. I invite Mr Thin to make a short opening statement of about five minutes. I will then kick off with a few questions, and my colleagues will ask some follow-up questions.

I ask you to note for the record that, although I was at one time a member, a trustee and indeed the chairman of the John Muir Trust, I resigned from all those positions some years ago and I have nothing to do with the petition.

We are here to answer the committee’s questions, so I will make only four brief introductory points. First, I apologise to the committee for the time that it has taken to progress the wild land mapping. It has been a fiendishly complicated task—we have been trying to map something that has never been mapped before, using a novel and innovative methodology, and it has simply taken longer than we thought that it would.

In parallel to working with the committee and the John Muir Trust on that, we have responded to detailed requests from the Scottish Government as part of refreshing Scottish planning policy and the national planning framework, and that work is on-going. I apologise and thank members for their patience, and I apologise to the John Muir Trust, which has also been exceedingly patient.

Secondly, I agree with the inference from the petition that what the John Muir Trust calls wild land is a hugely important resource for Scotland. It is important for tourism—a lot of people come here because of it—and it is an integral part of the brand value that sells a great deal of produce in our food and drink sectors. To see that, we need only look at the packaging and labels on some types of smoked salmon or on some of our whisky exports.

Wild land is hugely important for recreation and gets an awful lot of people out every weekend. As a consequence, it is quite important for skills retention in Scotland—members would be surprised at how many people in the financial sector work in Edinburgh rather than in London because of access to that land. A lot of people feel that it is part of our national identity.

I have no problem in agreeing with the inference from the petition, but we need to be clear what we are talking about. Scotland has a managed landscape that has evolved over thousands of years, and there are probably no—or very few—areas of anything that one could call natural wilderness. We also need to remember that one person’s wild land is another person’s place of work.

SNH is focusing on the quality that people experience as wildness or wild land character and on protecting that. If 100 people are taken for a walk into the Scottish hills, there will be little consensus at all about when they have crossed a line into wild land. There might be rather more agreement about the sense of transition that is experienced through degrees of wildness.

Thirdly, I acknowledge the petition’s focus on what the John Muir Trust terms the “best areas” of wild land. Those major areas of wild land character are of greatest national importance, and they provide us with what is, in European terms, a unique selling point as a country.

However, that is not to say that there are not countless small and locally important opportunities to experience wildness all around Scotland, including opportunities close to our urban settlements. Those are important too, but they may well be better protected through local planning policies. SNH is happy to—and does—advise local authorities on the identification and, if appropriate, the protection of those local areas.

Fourthly, I question the petition’s assumption that a new national statutory environmental designation is the best way of protecting that resource. There may be other, more effective ways of achieving the same objective. We need a planning mechanism that can recognise the gradation of experience that we are talking about and accommodate the fact that not all activities or developments have a significant impact on wildness. Contrary to some media commentary, that is not to be confused with the issue of intervisibility indicators on what can be seen from any given place. It is about the impact on an experiential quality.

Scottish planning policy and the current national planning framework 2 already recognise the importance of safeguarding areas of wild land character in Scotland. The primary focus of our work has been—and continues to be—on ensuring the effectiveness of those policies so that they work well for everyone. At the end of the day, the issue is facilitating good developments in the most appropriate places, which requires a policy tool that is clear for all and effective in its intended purpose and which avoids unintended consequences.

I thank you for inviting us—we will do our best to respond to your questions. This is a very significant area of work for us.

Thank you, Mr Thin. I have a couple of questions, and I invite Ian Jardine to come in at any stage.

First, I would like you to clear up some confusion in my mind. As you know, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change has said that he is

“not persuaded that there is a case for a new statutory designation for ‘wild land’”.

However, you will probably also be familiar with the fact that some of the tabloids have reported the First Minister as saying that wind farms may be banned from wild land. Surely that would involve some form of designation.

I do not think that it would need a designation. A designation is an option, but I question whether it is the best option. Planning policy is an equally effective tool for controlling different types of development.

Are you quite comfortable that there is a clear and absolute definition of what we mean by wild land?

I will turn to Ian Jardine on that. We have done an awful lot of work on the issue, but clearly an experiential quality is exceedingly hard to define. I ask Ian to say where we have got to.

We need to be honest about the fact that there is no single national or international definition of what we mean by “wild land”. In our mapping work, we have to be clear that we can map only things that can be mapped, so we need to use as a proxy, if you like, the things that are associated with the sense of wildness that people talk about, such as remoteness and the lack of visibility of structures. We can map those, and that produces a map.

The view on what constitutes wild land requires some consensus and agreement, probably at a political level, about what we want to protect. We cannot offer a clear definition of what is or is not wild land, as a lot of that is to do with perception. Sooner or later, someone must take decisions about what we mean by wild land and what we will do about it.

That is the point that I made to Andrew Thin. This seems to be a bit of a vague area, whereas we have two national parks with defined boundaries.

I have a technical question for Mr Jardine. I understand that SNH has a natural heritage indicator N3, which shows where Scotland is visually unaffected by built development, but that has not been publicly produced since 2010. Will you explain why that is not currently available?

I would be happy to write with all the technical information, but the issue is that we have had technical problems with updating that indicator. I should emphasise that N3 is a different indicator from the wild land or wildness indicator, in that N3 concerns simply visibility. N3 is one of the things that we have used in looking at how to define wild land, but it is not the only thing.

I cannot provide all the technical details just now, but we have had technical problems in using some of the data on visibility and transferring that into a mapped form so that it can be mapped. We will be able to produce that information later this year, but at the moment I am told that we will not have that available until something like June.

Many constituents have written to us recently, not least because of the petition, to argue that the development of wind energy is the main threat to Scotland’s wild land. What is your view on that?

That is one of the significant developments affecting wild land and landscape issues across the country. As we all know, in the context of promoting the Government’s energy policy, difficult decisions are being taken about what should be permitted and whether some developments might go too far and should not therefore be allowed.

However, we should not get entirely obsessed by wind energy, as that is not the only issue affecting wild land. Other kinds of development can have an impact and those impacts can vary. Often, the issue is not black and white. Features such as upland tracks, which have also been in the media, can affect wild land. Different types of development have different types of impact, and people experience them differently and feel differently about them.

Good morning, Mr Thin and Mr Jardine. There is no such thing as wild land, is there, Mr Thin?

I was careful to say that wildness is an experiential quality. It is the experience that people have that is wild; it is not the land that is wild.

When you gave evidence to another committee on which I sit, you said that you thought that we were talking at cross-purposes. I quote:

“First, let me be clear that Scotland is an entirely man-made landscape”.

You went on to repeat:

“Scotland is entirely a man-made landscape, or a people-made landscape, to be clear.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 21 March 2012; c 1214.]

In our discussion this morning, it has already become clear that we cannot define what wild land is. Therefore, are we not trying to square a circle?

No, I do not think so. Scotland is entirely a man-made landscape or a people-made landscape. There is no question but that it has been made by people over thousands of years and there is almost nothing that is pristine wilderness in Scotland. However, we are not talking about wilderness, so let us be clear about that. We are talking about the experience that people have in certain parts of Scotland, which they describe as experiencing wildness. I prefer the term that is used in Scottish planning policy; it talks about “wild land character”, which is much more helpful than the concept of wild land. That is why I made it clear that I am not sure that we can simply draw lines on maps and say that one area is wild land and another area is not, as there is a gradation.

10:15

I am still confused. However, on that basis, let us look at the University of Leeds report of 2010, which states:

“In Scotland, effort to safeguard wild land has focused on maintaining the qualities that are valued for recreational use ... Areas of wild land character in some of Scotland’s remoter upland, mountain and coastal areas are very sensitive to any form of development or intrusive human activity.”

Who defines what is intrusive human activity? We seem to be saying that wild land is for recreational use, but we also seem to be saying that there should be no invasion of human activity to impact on wild land. How did the report even attempt to reconcile those views?

I find that a difficult definition from the University of Leeds. Actually, the vast majority of Scotland is also somebody’s workplace. For a stalker or a keeper, the land is their place of work.

Depending on their perspective, some people might consider that an invasion of so-called wild land.

That is possible, but it is clear that Scottish planning policy states that we should protect “wild land character” or wildness. That in no sense precludes many such activities.

In talking about wild land, another issue that we discussed in the other committee was land registration. Who owns the wild land that you are mapping? When will that mapping be complete?

Scotland is owned by a lot of different people. Off the top of my head, I cannot tell you how much of the wild land is—

What if the owners do not wish their land to be characterised as wild land?

Planning policy of any kind does not necessarily take that into account. Planning policy applies to land, whoever owns it. The question of who owns the land is not necessarily for planning policy.

I will ask one direct question that I have already asked. Is it not the case that the issue has nothing to do with the definition of wild land but has grown because of the development of wind energy?

Wind energy is one of the planning challenges that Scotland has to tackle effectively at the moment and over the next few years, but it is only one of a number of challenges. We need an effective planning system, whatever developments come forward.

I do not think that you answered my other question. When will the mapping of wild land be completed?

The mapping has been completed. That is why we are here.

Good morning, Mr Thin and Mr Jardine. In his introductory remarks, Mr Thin mentioned the responsibilities of local authorities, and he has just mentioned the need for an effective planning system. In my experience, planning authorities and planning committees can depart from their local plan, sometimes with no rhyme or reason. Indeed, planning officers’ recommendations often do not give due weight to wild land, which is contrary to the national importance that it is given in NPF2 and in SPP. Does SNH consider that current policy provides adequate protection for wild land? How should your work be incorporated into the forthcoming NPF3 and SPP?

Obviously, given its timing, the consultation on the revisions to SPP and NPF3 is very much in our minds. We are looking at ways of helping to inform the revision of SPP and NPF3 to make them more effective, to ensure that the Government’s policy intentions are adequately reflected and, if possible, to improve how they operate.

A lot of the mapping work builds on what the existing Scottish planning policy says about protection of wild land. If there are ways in which the Government would like to consult on changes, developments or improvements to that, our job is to help to formulate how that consultation might happen.

Do you have a view on my comments about local authorities departing sometimes from local plans?

As you might expect from a non-elected non-departmental public body, we are somewhat cautious about saying that we have a role in telling locally elected planning authorities what they should or should not do. However, there is a balance between what is in national planning policy and what is, in essence, for local authorities to decide in the context of that general planning policy. SPP and NPF3 will set out the national policy, which local authorities will interpret locally in their development plans.

As I said, a lot of our mapping work has been on the basis that the existing SPP policy about wild land character could be improved and we could be more helpful by defining that policy so that it is clearer to local government and therefore easier to interpret locally.

I believe that in one of the briefings—I do not have it in front of me—Highland Council has asked for greater clarity on turbine applications, for example. Will that be provided?

Yes—we are trying to do that, but we can do that only in the context of decisions that ministers will take on SPP and NPF3. We can help with mapping and with clarifying on the ground what that might mean.

I will come back to my question about completing the mapping. In our briefing papers, we have a map of relative wildness in Scotland, which was published last year. I understand that you have been examining options for identifying wild land areas that are considered to be particularly important and that a report is expected imminently. Will you help with my confusion or lack of understanding about whether the mapping is complete? It appears not to be complete.

The mapping that the committee asked for is complete. Ministers have also asked for a range of mapping as part of their consideration of producing NPF3 and refreshing SPP, so we have been doing that work as well. However, that work is complete—at least for the moment, pending further requests. If the committee wants further mapping, we will certainly provide it.

I do not want this to take up the committee’s time, but we will need further clarification. The advice that we have had is that there is a map of relative wildness but that the mapping of defined wild land areas is not complete.

Chic Brodie makes a useful point. Could you write to the committee to clarify the exact state of play? It is quite a technical area and there has been a bit of confusion between the advice that we have received and what you are advising us today.

We will write to the committee.

Good morning. What, in essence, is the purpose of Scottish Natural Heritage?

We are a statutory body that provides advice to ministers and local government.

Thank you. What I really want to understand is this: have you been nobbled?

No.

The suspicion is that the reason why we do not have a map is that, after you produced a map, ministers saw it and, because it would interfere with plans for the development of onshore wind farms, conversations took place in which people said, “We simply can’t have this. We can’t have this in the public domain and we can’t possibly put in place statutory provision around all this, because it will interfere with our energy policy.” Have any conversations of that character taken place at any time?

There will always be suspicions about all sorts of things—

I am asking whether any conversations of the character that I described have taken place.

Conversations of the character that you described have not taken place, but considerable conversations with officials have taken place over a long period, in which we have provided advice in response to requests in relation to the refreshing of SPP and NPF3.

Is the reason why we do not have a map in the public domain the fact that the Government is concerned that the publication of such a map might interfere with the advancement of current energy policy?

Not to my knowledge—not to my knowledge at all.

Will the map that may finally emerge out of all this be greater than the original thoughts about the map that was being designed? Will it be more restricted than the map that was originally designed?

I do not know. I am not privy to what ministers will decide.

Now I am lost. If there is eventually a map, that map will not necessarily be anything that Scottish Natural Heritage has ultimately recommended.

Perhaps I can help to clarify. The conversation that is taking place is different, and it concerns ministers’ consideration of the options on which they wish to consult in the SPP and NPF3. For that purpose, SNH has, as of last year, produced a wide range of maps, which ministers are considering to inform that policy.

Obviously, we do not know at this stage what conclusions ministers have drawn from that. I am sure that they will be weighing up lots of considerations in deciding what Scottish planning policy they will consult on. For that purpose, we have produced a lot of maps that map all sorts of things for them. That is understandable. I do not know exactly which maps ministers are focusing on or which ones they might include in any consultation.

Is the problem the fact that there is a contradiction—to which I think Chic Brodie alluded—between the understanding that, in some shape, size or form, everybody seems to have about the advantages of looking after wild land, whatever definition one wishes to use for it, and the potential for such a designation to interfere with other strategic policy objectives?

I suppose that that is the basis of planning policy and what SPP is there to do. It aims to strike that balance.

I think that you said a moment ago that many significant issues other than onshore wind farms must be taken into account, and you mentioned upland tracks as being one. Will you give me a schedule of more specific significant issues that you think are of a parallel nature to onshore wind developments, so that I can judge their relative merits?

Over time, there have been a series of developments offering development opportunity in the Scottish uplands, which have proved controversial because they have an impact on landscape and various other things. Historically, there have been issues in relation to commercial forestry, large-scale hydro development and telecommunications masts. I do not think that the policy should be simply about wind farms; the debate is about how much of Scotland’s upland landscape the Government wishes to apply particular planning policies to, because of the nature and character of that landscape. That is not just about wind farms.

In that answer, Mr Jardine referred to what I will ask about. What consultation has there been with people living in or near areas that may be designated as wild land? In particular, are people to be denied a broadband connection because they will not be allowed a telecoms mast? There cannot be cabling everywhere for broadband—in the last few areas, people will have to rely on masts. How much consultation has there been with people who could be affected by any particular wild land designation in respect of their belonging to the 21st century?

If the Government proposes any changes in SPP and NPF3, there will be consultation on that. There is no proposal yet, so there is as yet no consultation, but there will be.

Have you consulted people in the areas concerned on your designations of wild land and wilderness?

We are not designating in any sense at all. We have simply sought to map, from a purely objective, scientific point of view, where the relevant qualities are found. The concept of wild land is misleading. Wildness refers to experiential qualities, and we have sought to map those experiential qualities.

10:30

Good morning. I want to try to clarify something, Mr Jardine. You indicated that maps have been produced for the Scottish Government’s consideration of SPP and NPF3. Are those maps publicly available, or will the Government hold them confidentially?

I understand that they are currently for advice to ministers. They were produced beyond the simply analytical map, which is the relative wildness map that members have seen. We are currently treating further maps that are analyses of that data in a particular way, if you like, as being for advice to ministers. Ministers will no doubt decide when to publish them in the future.

So that I am clear, can you confirm that Scottish Natural Heritage has no plans to or cannot publish those maps as they stand?

As things stand, I would certainly seek permission from the Scottish Government before I published those maps.

I want to get clarification on the maps. On the wildness map, I understand the designation that Mr Thin has given in respect of measuring wildness and the character of and nature of what would be defined as wildness. You said that there are issues to do with what the individual considers to be scenic and wild rather than any real designation being applied to land. If we have a category of high wildness in the map to which Mr Jardine referred, how would we ensure protection for areas that have been classified as such? We should bear in mind Mr Thin’s comment that no piece of land in Scotland has been unaffected by man over the centuries and the millennium. How would we ensure that we protect areas that are rated as high wildness?

Regardless of anything that might change, current Scottish planning policy attaches a high level of priority to the protection of areas of wild land character or wildness. I have made the point that those qualities are experiential, so we have sought to map them on the basis of what we think a broad consensus on those qualities would be. If the current policy is applied, developments that would have a significant impact on the quality of wildness in those areas would not be consented, but many things happen in Scotland, including in what are called wild land areas, that do not have a significant impact on wildness.

For clarification, you indicated the policy that is in place to protect high-level wildness land, as we do not yet have a designation of wild land. My colleague Mr MacDonald referred to local authorities, particularly Highland Council, seeking clearer guidance or guidelines or potentially regulation on proposed developments on land that is designated as high wildness land. What would you say to local authorities that came back and said, “We need clearer guidance or regulation to ensure that we are clear about how we protect land that is designated as ‘high’ in wildness mapping”?

Highland Council and others, including developers such as wind farm developers, are asking for greater clarity of definition in respect of what is meant by the term “wild land character”. With ministers, we have been seeking to get a tighter definition that will help everybody. Clarity of policy is essential if planning is going to work in an efficient and effective manner.

The John Muir Trust petition indicates a concern that, if we do not have a designation of wild land, there may not be protection of wild land and we may see unfettered developments taking place in areas that are seen as having a high classification in terms of wildness mapping. I am trying to compare what the petition proposes with what SNH and the Scottish Government can do to give confidence to the general population that SNH is carrying out its duty to protect the natural landscape.

Under current planning policy, there is no risk at all of unfettered development in what are being called wild land areas or areas of wild land character. Current planning policy already makes that very clear, so there is no question of unfettered development. The difficulty that is being addressed is the fact that there is insufficient clarity in current planning policy to enable the system to work smoothly, efficiently and effectively. For example, people can ask whether a site is an area of wild land character, and they can question whether a development will have a significant impact on that wild land character. Those are two separate issues that need clarification. However, as things stand there is no chance at all of unfettered development in such areas.

You referred earlier to good developments. Can you define a good development?

I am defining it as a development that fits with planning policy.

Do you mean current planning policy or future planning policy? As we have heard this morning, NPF3 is currently being worked through by the Scottish Government and SNH has been asked to submit maps for SPP. What planning policy are we working towards? Are there any major changes to planning policy coming down the road in relation in NPF3 that may lead to further concerns for organisations such as the John Muir Trust about where we are going on future developments on land in Scotland?

Planning policy continually evolves to take account of changing circumstances, so the question of what is good is continually evolving. However, it is reasonable to say that, if a proposal fits with planning policy as written, one can describe it as good. The difficulty that we are dealing with is that planning policy in this particular area is not sufficiently clear for some people’s needs.

I ask for further clarification. Could Mr Thin or Mr Jardine tell us what SNH’s reaction would be if a future Scottish Government were to revoke all current planning guidance on the protection of land with wild land characteristics as defined by SNH?

As I clarified in response to an earlier question, our job is to advise on the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage. Our advice would be that the land is an important part of Scotland’s natural heritage, that it is part of the image that this country portrays internally and externally and that it is a key feature of this country compared with other parts of western Europe, so not to protect it would have a damaging effect on Scotland’s natural heritage. All that SNH can do is advise ministers what might damage or benefit our natural heritage, so we would give that advice.

Just to get it on the record, could Mr Thin or Mr Jardine indicate whether SNH is involved in any community planning partnerships in Scotland? If so, what is SNH’s role in those community planning partnerships? You say that SNH’s role is to advise the Scottish Government, but what is its role in community planning partnerships, particularly where there are designations of high wildness?

SNH is involved in a significant number of community planning partnerships. I am a member of the national group on community planning and we chair at least one CPP. Our role in CPPs is primarily to ensure that the national public services that we provide are delivered in a manner that is locally sensitive and integrated into other local delivery.

In the past fortnight, several Scottish newspapers have reported that maps drawn up by SNH—which you have alluded to and which we are seeking clarification on—have identified that about 28 per cent of Scottish countryside is wild land. Where did those newspapers get that information?

What they have taken there is a different number. The 28 per cent is the 2009 N3 visibility indicator that the convener referred to earlier, which is not the same thing. It is the number for the indicator that simply looks at visibility of built structures. In mapping wild land character, we have looked at other things besides visibility. The two are not the same.

That is very clear. I hope that you have also helped the media to understand that, because of the perception that it creates.

About a year and a half ago, SNH put out planning guidelines on wind energy. Have those been followed? My experience is that they have not. If not, why not?

We have published a huge range of guidance on wind farms over the best part of five to 10 years. We will continue to update that as circumstances and planning policy change.

By and large, the guidelines have been followed by most responsible developers. Not all developers follow our advice. If we advise that a proposal is likely to be contrary to national policy, and the developer goes ahead—there are a number of such proposals in the pipeline—we will lodge a formal objection so that ministers are alerted and can decide what they wish to do. That is not something that we do often, but we do it occasionally.

The reason why I asked about that is that there is little point in defining areas as wild land and accompanying that with Scottish Government planning guidelines drawn up by SNH if developers choose their own guidelines on how that land should be developed. It comes back to Jackson Carlaw’s question about what the purpose of SNH is.

I hope that I answered that question at the time. There are four or five planning applications in the pipeline that we consider conflict with Scottish planning policy and NPF2 in relation to wild land character. In those four or five cases, we have lodged a formal objection so that ministers can be alerted to the fact that those applications conflict with planning policy. Ministers will then decide what to do. We are not a regulator.

I have a final question for Mr Jardine. Am I correct in my understanding that since 2010, the N3 indicator has not been publicly available?

We have not updated it since the 2009 figure.

So that is correct. Has the analysis of N3 been done for 2013?

No. Because it takes time to gather the information, we are always a few years behind in publishing it. We are currently updating N3 using 2010 data. As you can imagine, a calculation that covers the whole of Scotland—in terms of what you can see from where—is huge. It is always lagging behind. However, we are currently trying to update that using the next year’s data. We have had technical difficulties with that. If we are writing to confirm the situation on maps, perhaps it would be a good idea for me to give you a definitive answer on what we can publish on visibility and when.

That would be useful. As you can understand, the John Muir Trust and others are concerned that there is information that the public should know about that they do not know about. For example, do you have N3 information that has not been publicly announced?

There is nothing we have that is fit for publication. We have had technical problems with the N3 indicator. We want to ensure that when we publish the N3 stuff, it is defensible and technically correct. That has been the issue.

So the issue is not, as Jackson Carlaw hinted, that you have been under any political pressure not to release that crucial information.

No.

Perhaps you could clarify that when you write to us.

The next step is for the committee to consider what we do with the petition. Committee members will obviously have their own views. I think that it is a very important petition and that we need to continue it. It would make sense for the minister, Paul Wheelhouse, to come before us at a future meeting and talk about the petition in detail. SNH has given us evidence today, but we need to have the politicians involved in the issue as well. I recommend that we do that as a minimum, but I throw it open to the views of committee members on the next step.

I very much agree with the suggestion that we invite the minister. I found this morning’s session like chasing a bar of soap in a bath.

Do members agree to that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

We will continue the petition and ask the minister to attend a future meeting. I thank the witnesses for coming along today. This is a very technical area, and we thank you for the information and advice that you have given us.

10:46 Meeting suspended.

10:48 On resuming—