Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, March 8, 2018

Official Report 952KB pdf

---

Green-belt Land (Woodhall and Faskine Estates)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-10476, in the name of Graham Simpson, on saving the green belt.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the efforts of campaigners fighting to save greenbelt land at Woodhall and Faskine estates in North Lanarkshire from development; considers that greenbelt and greenspaces play an important role in aiding physical and mental health; notes the view that such land should not be given up for development, and commends the Save Woodhall and Faskine group on its efforts to save what it believes is an important area for generations to come.

12:46  

I thank those members who signed my motion and so allowed it to be debated, and I thank all those who will take part in the debate. I also extend a warm welcome to the representatives of the save Woodhall and Faskine campaign and others who have made the trip to be in the public gallery today.

It is customary for members to disclose whether they have an interest in the subject of the debate. Here is mine: I love the green belt.

The debate comes about because of a proposal to seek planning permission to build on green-belt land between Calderbank and Carnbroe in North Lanarkshire—I accept that the minister will not be able to talk about that application. The area includes land that is owned by the daughters of the late Willie Whitelaw, which was passed to them by their father before he died. It contains beautiful woodland containing many species of tree, the ruins of the former estate house and what is left of the Monkland canal. The area is rich in history and heritage. It could and should be enhanced, and Orchard Brae, the developer, says that its plans—which have not been submitted yet—would allow for that. However, the plans would also see 2,600 houses built on green-belt land and would, in effect, join Calderbank to Carnbroe and then Airdrie.

Orchard Brae says that it would leave woodlands on the Woodhall and Faskine estates intact, but that is only because, with the help of the Woodland Trust, I managed to secure a tree preservation order, through North Lanarkshire Council, covering the entire area. Let us be honest: where fortunes can be made by the simple granting of planning permission, trees are not high in people’s thought processes, so that TPO was vital.

Green belts are more than just boundaries between rural and urban areas. Open spaces provide habitats for wildlife and are ideal places for walking and other recreational pursuits. They provide a natural ecosystem that is beneficial for water treatment and air quality, and they are important in preventing floods.

As my party’s spokesman for housing and communities, I am fully aware of the pressure on the existing housing stock and of the need to build more affordable homes to meet the demand. However, that must be done in the right places, and the area that I have mentioned is not one of them.

Numerous health benefits are brought about by a walk in the countryside. Members do not need to take just my word for that. At a recent public meeting, a local general practitioner, David Walker—an appropriate surname—who serves the area around Calderbank and Carnbroe, spoke passionately about the health benefits, both physical and mental, of the green belt. Last week, he told me:

“We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic. Scottish government figures state that in 2016 65% of adults over 16 years of age were overweight and 29% were obese. These figures are increased from the previous 10 years. The benefits of exercise are many, particularly in green space.”

Those are fine words. He went on to say that exercise is the first line of treatment for many conditions, particularly obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiac rehabilitation and mental health issues. The latter issues, in particular, benefit from exposure to green space. Dr Walker concluded:

“Once green space is gone from a community it is extremely difficult to recreate. We must do all we can to protect the health of future generations.”

Dr Walker’s is not a lone voice. The Lancet recently published a paper that claims that exposure to green space can help to lower mortality rates, and a joint study by the University of Glasgow and the University of St Andrews illustrated why the green belt is priceless, stating that environments that promote good health might be crucial in the fight to reduce health inequalities. In general, people living in poorer areas are more likely to be unhealthy and die earlier. However, the research found that living near parks, woodland or other open spaces helped to reduce those inequalities regardless of people’s social class.

All of that is backed by the World Health Organization in “Urban green spaces and health: A review of evidence”, which concludes:

“The evidence shows that urban green space has health benefits, particularly for economically deprived communities, children, pregnant women and senior citizens. It is therefore essential that all populations have adequate access to green space”.

In the chamber last week, I asked Fiona Hyslop whether she agreed that the idea of having a country park and canal heritage trail at Calderbank was worth investigating. She agreed that heritage trails can bring a social and economic uplift to the areas that they serve and asked to be kept informed of any developments. I will keep her informed.

We must do all that we can to protect our environment from being destroyed. It is up to this generation to ensure that the next generation is afforded the same chance to enjoy those urban woodlands and the physical and mental benefits that they bring to the communities that they serve.

We have an opportunity to protect Scotland’s green spaces and heritage through the Planning (Scotland) Bill, which is going through the Parliament. The bill is currently silent on the environment, but members should rest assured that I will lodge an amendment or two to ensure that precious green space is protected through the planning system and that we enshrine in law protection for historic and locally important buildings. I do not want that to be left to secondary legislation. I am happy to discuss my ideas with the minister.

We need a plan-led system that ensures that, when an area is designated as green belt and a council is fulfilling its housing targets, speculative applications that ring alarm bells for communities just cannot happen.

I again thank the local campaigners for their tireless work, and I thank members from across the political divide for their support. My colleague Margaret Mitchell will speak later, but I thank, in particular, Richard Leonard for his backing right from the start of the campaign.

I hope that those who take part in the debate will offer their backing to my constituents and all others who are fighting their corner across the country to protect what we have. As Dr Walker said, when the green belt is gone, it is gone for good.

I call Richard Leonard. I understand that he has an important meeting to attend afterwards, so I understand why he cannot stay for the rest of the debate.

12:54  

Thank you for your forbearance, Presiding Officer. I apologise for having to leave the chamber early.

I thank Graham Simpson for securing a very timely debate that raises some profoundly important questions not just about green spaces but about where the power lies in our society.

The proposal to concrete over the green belt between Calderbank and Carnbroe in North Lanarkshire has provoked not only local but national outrage. It is clear with this proposal, as with so many others, that on one side are ranged big-money interests while on the other side are ranged local people and local communities resisting the robbery of a natural asset—an asset that is of historical importance, significant ecological value and great recreational benefit. They are joined by the democratically elected and accountable local council, whose local development plan has just recently re-asserted that this green space is green-belt land that is not for development.

The first proposal of application notice to build 3,000 houses and retail and other commercial premises, which was submitted on behalf of the developer to North Lanarkshire Council in 2016, was clearly in direct breach of the local development plan, which kept the land in the green belt. A revised proposal of application notice has now been submitted to include 1,600 private homes and 1,000 dwellings that are described as

“social, affordable and market-rent properties”.

That is what commonly happens. Developers who are seeking to maximise stakeholder profit first pitch a proposal to maximise their gains, then scale proposals back to make them appear more palatable to local councillors, who, for understandable reasons, want to see the building of council houses, houses for social rent and affordable homes.

As we have seen in other parts of Scotland, once developments of this scale and size are under way, the developers seek to squeeze more houses in, usually claiming that the market has changed since planning permission was granted. In most instances, they also seek to reduce their contribution under agreements made under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, claiming that the whole project would be jeopardised unless they are able to build more and contribute less. So, the debate is, in the end, about where the power lies.

Time and time again, we have seen the democratic decisions of local planning bodies made up of elected councillors overturned by the planning and environmental appeals division of the Scottish Government, which appoints an unelected reporter. There is something quite wrong with a system in which the decisions of locally elected councillors can be overridden by an unelected central Government-appointed official. That is also, in the end, about where the power lies.

There is a broader lesson for local communities across Scotland: stand firm and fight, and keep fighting and pressing the Government. There is also a lesson for members of this Parliament. When we consider the Planning (Scotland) Bill, as it comes before us over the coming months, let us look at the right of appeal and let us consider equality of treatment. Let us consider what we can do in this Parliament to re-empower local government, to revitalise local democracy and to promote the ballot box over the board room—and, in so doing, redistribute the power.

It has been a privilege to speak in the debate and to work with the campaigners locally. I admire their determined fighting spirit and their enduring faith—which echoes mine—that, in the end, organised people can overcome organised money. [Applause.]

I say gently to the public in the gallery that they are not permitted to clap those members who have spoken, although I know why they want to.

12:58  

I thank Graham Simpson for securing the debate. I am certain of the immense importance of our environment, and it is impossible to overstate the significance of its conservation. That is a worthy goal, but it must have its proper limits.

It is well known that Scotland’s population is rising. The number of households around Scotland’s four main cities is projected to rise by up to 24 per cent over the next 25 years and, on top of that, 150,000 households do not have anywhere to live and are on waiting lists. Only last Monday, Graham Simpson and I attended a meeting with North Lanarkshire Council at which he and I pressed the council about house building and its waiting lists.

There is a rising need for homes in our major cities, and waiting lists are growing, with Homes for Scotland reporting that we need at least 100,000 new houses of all tenures to meet the demand. Whether or not we want to acknowledge it, the fact remains that families cannot live without a home. We must also find a balance between looking after the environment and encouraging economic growth.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry.

I am confused, because Mr Simpson’s Tory counterparts in England constantly warn of a housing crisis and say that something must be done to relieve the suffering. They are threatening to remove planning powers from English councils because not enough homes are being built, and where will those homes be built? On green-belt land. The Scottish Tories seem to be operating a double standard. If they agree that there is a need for more housing but wish to block any housing development on green-belt land, either they are defying their party or they simply prefer having homeless people to having selective development.

Will the member give way?

No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.

The EuroPark development will not solve all the housing need issues but, if it is approved, it will add 3,000 new homes where families can put down roots and make lives for themselves. Those lives will include the 1,100 new jobs that the project will create. Furthermore, the project will generate an additional £126 million in household income for the families who will settle and work in the area and will bring much-needed relief in relation to housing supply. EuroPark will also bring £500 million of new investment to Scotland and Scottish businesses. I could go on and on.

More than 200 acres of parkland will be retained, and the investment opportunities will draw businesses to reinvest in their communities. Some people may object that, if we allow development on parts of the green belt, we will be on a slippery slope to eventually losing it altogether. That concern may be well founded but, as I said, no one in the chamber does not recognise the importance of conservation. Therefore, I say again that we must strike a balance between protecting the green belt and encouraging development.

Some may say, “Very well, but we should develop brownfield sites first.” Of course, those sites should be developed and they have been. Half of the homes that were built in 2014-15 were on brownfield sites, and 199 hectares of previously used land was brought back into residential use in 2016. That objection also overlooks the fact that there simply are not enough brownfield sites on which to build all the homes that are required. The truth is that many brownfield sites are contaminated or have difficult ground conditions.

Rather than dig in our heels and cover our ears, we should have a rational discussion about how best to maintain the delicate balance between economic growth and conservation. We should be having a national discussion about the development of green-belt land in towns and cities. Tory members should stop trying to have their cake and eat it. Do they want economic upturn in Scotland or stagnation? I know what I want—I want homes, jobs and prosperity for Scotland.

13:03  

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on saving our green-belt land, and I thank my colleague Graham Simpson for lodging the motion.

The development in question is a controversial plan to build thousands of homes and amenities over a large swathe of green-belt land. It will be built on a site of 3 square miles containing fields and woods between the M8, Carnbroe, Cairnhill and Calderbank on the outskirts of Airdrie. The area is made up of two estates: Woodhall and Faskine. My family has a long association with the latter area, as my father was born and brought up on Faskine farm, where he lived until he was a young man. He spoke with great warmth about his boyhood and the idyllic freedom that he had, roaming the countryside there along with his faithful companion, a collie named Kep.

Although it is surrounded by urban development, this area of natural beauty has remained untouched for generations. Furthermore, it is of significant historical interest. It boasts the Monklands canal, which in the 19th century was one of the busiest canals in Britain, transporting around 1.5 million tonnes of coal and iron ore a year. There are also remains of the listed Woodhall estate country house and of one of Scotland’s earliest railways.

Despite that, it is countryside that is now set to be destroyed. The peace and serenity that hundreds of local people enjoy will be lost forever, as will much of the flora and fauna, and it will be replaced almost certainly by traffic congestion and pollution. We should not forget that the development threatens green-belt land in that area as well as in other areas in North Lanarkshire, including the Douglas Support estate—or Viewpark glen—which stretches from Coatbridge to Viewpark and Uddingston. It is only thanks to the Viewpark Conservation Group that that site of immense historical interest, with connections ranging from the covenanters to Winston Churchill, has not been completely consumed by developers. Furthermore, the green belt in Stepps is subject to the Gateside and Hornshill farm development, which was rejected by North Lanarkshire Council but has now been approved by the Scottish Government reporter, opening the flood gates to other developments with the result that Stepps, like other areas, is being slowly overwhelmed and consumed.

Those green-belt areas have recognised health benefits and are known to locals as their green lung, assisting in their physical and mental wellbeing. With obesity reaching record levels, it is key to encourage exercise, not discourage it. Quite simply, the value of protecting those green-belt areas cannot be overstated. As Richard Lyle said, we need more new and affordable social housing, but brownfield sites should be developed for that. All too often developers are plundering green-belt land first as the most attractive to build on, which is simply unacceptable. Only if there is a compelling reason should green-belt areas such as the Faskine and Woodhall estates be considered for development.

I pay tribute to the save Woodhall and Faskine campaigners and, along with Graham Simpson, my MSP colleagues and councillors, I pledge my continued whole-hearted support for their campaign. I sincerely hope that the minister will recognise today that all brownfield sites must be exhausted before there is any possibility of developing our precious green belt.

13:07  

I thank Graham Simpson for bringing this member’s business debate to the chamber. I am grateful for the emails that I have received from many constituents in relation to not just Woodhall and Faskine but green-belt developments across Scotland. Many of those are coming in response to the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

I am very sympathetic to the campaign that is being run by Graham Simpson’s constituents, but I will restrict my remarks to some more general points around the green belt. The concept of the green belt has been around for a long time. Following the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, it provided an important means to curtail urban sprawl and ribbon development while encouraging more efficient use of the existing urban spaces. In my region of Lothian, we have the Edinburgh green belt, which is Scotland’s oldest green belt and was established 61 years ago by the local authority at the time. There was no formal structure then, so each local authority had to develop its own local policies around the green belt and to incorporate what were considered to be the boundaries of the green belt. However, the Edinburgh green belt is now covered by the SESplan—the strategic development plan for Edinburgh and south-east Scotland. Of course, it is proposed that strategic development plans will be abolished.

Although I commend the concept, I do not think that green belts are, in fact, fit for purpose. A belt or a ring is a hard concept that provides a hard edge to settlements, and across Europe ideas about planning have moved on since 1947. If we visit cities and settlements in Germany in particular, we see that best practice now is not hard edges but wedges or long fingers of greenery in the hearts of cities moving out into the countryside, so that the distinction between urban and rural and between brown and green is not so hard. That enables the maximum number of people living in settlements to experience, enjoy and benefit from green spaces. In Edinburgh, with the economic growth that is projected, there are increasing pressures on the green belt. However, I question the green belt in the Edinburgh context, because a lot of it is not green but brown and is weeds; it is land held by speculators waiting for the day when land values will increase and they can take away a profit.

We want to see legislation that strengthens the planning system and our ability to protect green spaces and the values that they provide. I am working with constituents in Edinburgh, for example, who are being served with eviction notices to move them off farm land, which we would prefer to see as a food belt. The land was part of the green belt, but is now zoned for a film studio, under pressure from the Scottish Government—another speculative development.

The current Planning (Scotland) Bill contains nothing on the green belt although, in section 10, under “Simplified development zones”, it is clear that ministers want to revoke section 54 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which prevents simplified planning zones in approved green belts. The bill proposes that simplified development zones could be established in green-belt areas to support

“town centre investment and regeneration”.

That is in the policy memorandum, and I think that we should look at it. However, the bill contains some welcome proposals on local place plans, although they are very ill-defined.

The wider issue raised by Graham Simpson’s motion relates to how the planning system works. In too many cases across Scotland, and not only in green belts, we find developments that have been unanimously rejected by elected members of the planning authority being appealed by developers and upheld on appeal or, in many cases, we find decisions being rejected by reporters or ministers. As we have heard when taking evidence on the Planning (Scotland) Bill, that undermines the shared ambition to have a front-loaded planning system. We will therefore bring forward proposals to end the applicant’s right of appeal, to strengthen the local development plan, to eliminate the speculative volume house-building model, and to give local people and local planning authorities much greater say in how land is developed across Scotland, including in the green belts.

I thank Graham Simpson for allowing me the opportunity to air those thoughts.

13:11  

I thank Graham Simpson for bringing this important and timely debate to the chamber.

I have to offer an apology to you, Presiding Officer. I missed the start of the opening speech because I was taking a young person to meet the First Minister.

That is perfectly all right. You sent us a note in advance, which was most appropriate.

Thank you for that. I just wanted to declare it.

We have heard a bit about why the green belt is important. It is important to have open space. It links with the play agenda and the healthy lifestyle agenda, and it is very good for physical and mental wellbeing. The briefing that we received from the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland mentioned a survey that was held in June last year that found that 74.6 per cent of people agreed that the green belt should have stronger protection.

I lodged a general question for this morning, and although it did not get taken because we did not quite reach question 10, I now have Kevin Stewart’s answer in written form, which can be found on the website. It says:

“Scottish Planning Policy provides strong and flexible policy for greenbelts across Scotland. The bill won’t change that policy but aims to give it greater weight in decision making.”

That assures me that the Scottish Government takes the green belt very seriously, and why would it not?

Will the member give way?

I want to make progress. I have a lot of local issues to talk about.

If a developer wants to build on the green belt, it must prove that there are exceptional circumstances and benefit to the community, especially when so many brownfield sites are available. That means I probably disagree with my colleague, Richard Lyle, and his comments. There are brownfield sites aplenty in North Lanarkshire.

The motion is about Faskine, which borders my constituency. This is a side issue, but in the Carnbroe area, people are also fighting a proposal for a local incinerator. I know that Monica Lennon has a debate on that next week, and I will commit to speak in that. I cannot go into much detail about that because it is at the local government planning stage, but I have stated my overall position—people really need to demonstrate why they want to build in a green-belt area and what benefit it would bring to the community.

Given the close proximity of Carnbroe, I will watch developments that take place through the various processes. I thank the group from Woodhall and Faskine, members of which I know are here—Kathleen, Dr Glen, Diane and Peter, all of whom I met coming off the train today; I apologise if I have missed anybody. I thank them for keeping me up-to-date with what has been going on. Alex Neil, whose constituency Carnbroe is in, sends his appreciation. He is at a funeral this morning.

Although the Faskine and Woodhall area has been on my doorstep all these years, I did not know until I went on a tour of it what a fantastic area it is. I have now started to use it as one of my running routes. I am not the best runner ever, but I have started to use it.

I want to mention the Stepps area, which Margaret Mitchell mentioned. One decision was taken by the local authority not to allow development, but that decision has been overturned by the reporter and there are now two more issues at the pre-planning stage. As with Faskine, the proposal needs to go in front of the local authority first, and rightly so. However, it directly affects my constituency and, as schools and infrastructure are already struggling to cope, I have committed to support my constituents as best I can. When the plans come in—if they get to that stage—I will lodge my objection with the council if it is required and appropriate to do so. I make that commitment clear.

We need more houses. I am proud of the Government’s targets and what we have done. However, we also need our green belts for our health and wellbeing. It is our job as MSPs, councillors and others to find that balance. I have every faith that the Government and the ministerial team that delivers planning will deliver just that.

13:15  

As a fellow Central Scotland MSP, I thank Graham Simpson for bringing the motion to the chamber for debate. I say a big “Hello and welcome” to everyone who has travelled from the communities that are affected to be here.

It takes a lot of time and effort to engage in the planning process. I say that as a former town planner—I refer members to my entry in the register of interests. Graham Simpson declared his love for the green belt; I love planning. I love its contribution to place making, and not just the great places that it has helped to shape, but the important part that it plays in protecting the natural environment that we all love and which is important both for our health and wellbeing and for future generations.

We are having the debate because there is a proposal in front of a community. One of the benefits of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 is that we now have a process in which there is early engagement and communities can get involved at the stage of the proposal of application notice. There is no planning application yet, and we cannot talk too much about the specific case because the cabinet secretary cannot get involved in the detail of it at the moment. However, it is good that the community can have its say; it has certainly done so.

We are re-examining planning legislation. We were told in 2006, and earlier, that if we front loaded the system, had early engagement and worked towards maintaining a plan-led system, we would get the right developments in the right places, that people would feel that they had a voice and had been listened to, and that we would get away from accusing local people of being nimbies who do not want development and are getting in the way of progress.

Being a Lanarkshire person, I know that we have a lot of vacant and derelict land there—we have a lot of brownfield land. In Ravenscraig, we have a big site where not an awful lot has happened. However, we have a system in Scotland that I believe is pro-development. More than 95 per cent of planning applications are approved, so we have a culture that is very much about making stuff happen, but we have to consider the viability of sites and why brownfield sites are becoming less attractive.

We know that a big constraint on development is infrastructure costs. We are considering that in our scrutiny of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. There are measures in the bill that are good and well intentioned, but if we are to be ambitious for our communities throughout Scotland, we need a transformative planning system.

I am very concerned about the lack of resources for planning. All the people in the public gallery have to pick up the phone to a planning officer. They have to ensure that they get a proper hearing, but 23 per cent of local authority planner jobs have disappeared in the past few years. That tells us that our priorities are, perhaps, not quite right.

Richard Leonard talked about where power lies. When I was 16, I went to university to study town planning; some of the debate has taken me back. We do not need to go over why we have green belt and why it is important. I was curious about why development happens and who makes decisions; members are applying the same level of curiosity to our scrutiny of the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

Environmental justice is not just handed over to communities: it is a battle and a fight. It costs money to get professional advice and to challenge planning decisions. The system is stacked in developers’ favour because they have armies of consultants and experts at their backs, but communities do not have any of that. When we have a development plan that says that such stuff should not be happening, we have to think about how level the playing field is. We are asking communities to take on big fights that are not of their making.

Will Monica Lennon give way?

I know that my time is up, Presiding Officer, but I am happy to take the intervention.

I am afraid that you should close shortly. It is a four-minute speech.

I would have been happy to take the intervention, but I appreciate that my time is up. I thank Graham Simpson for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response.

13:20  

I have listened with great interest to the debate, and I thank all members for their contributions and for the thought and care that went into them. I, too, welcome members of the public to the gallery.

Graham Simpson acknowledged—as did Monica Lennon, who is a former planning professional—that it would be inappropriate for me, as a member of the Cabinet, to comment on the merits of a specific planning case. However, I am happy to close the debate by bringing together some thoughts on the policy issues and on opportunities in relation to green spaces, community engagement and planning.

Members have acknowledged that green infrastructure has a great deal to contribute to our quality of life, health and wellbeing. We all agree that green spaces are important to people. In the “Greenspace Use and Attitudes Survey 2017”, more than 90 per cent of urban Scots surveyed said that it is important to have green space in their area. Green networks can be the lifeblood of a village, town or city; they contribute to quality of life and to health, and they provide many other benefits, including in managing flood risk, supporting wildlife and absorbing pollution. Scotland is an environmental leader, and the importance of green space is widely recognised in our policies on health, regeneration, the early years, planning, biodiversity and climate change.

We have also supported gathering of evidence about green space, including the pioneering “Scotland’s Greenspace Map”. The Government has funded “The Third State of Scotland’s Greenspace Report”, which gives the up-to-date picture of green space in Scotland. It shows that we can rightly claim to be a nation of green towns and cities, with green space comprising more than half our urban land area. That is the equivalent of a tennis-court sized publicly accessible green space for everyone who lives in urban Scotland. Through Scottish planning policy, we have set out how planning should protect and promote that wealth of green space as part of successful place making, because we know that being able to access high-quality green space can improve the health, wellbeing and confidence of people and communities.

One of the issues that the Local Government and Communities Committee has been looking at in relation to the Planning (Scotland) Bill is that the bill does not state what the purpose of planning is. We have heard from some stakeholders that it would be helpful to state that in the bill, because it would mean that everyone in the process would know the high-level vision for our country. Issues such as sustainable growth and sustainable development should be explicit in the bill.

It is as though we are having a stage 1 debate. I gently remind members that the debate is supposed to be about saving the green belt.

It is important that people understand the purpose of planning and the many objectives of planning infrastructure, planning policy and the law. The Government will have to look very carefully at what can be done to help people to understand and access the planning system. There are many misconceptions about the purpose of planning and the terminology that is used in planning. I will touch on that later.

I will go back to the benefits of green space. We have seen evidence from the World Health Organization on the benefits of green space. They include healthier birth weights, improved mental health, reduced cardiovascular mortality and obesity, and a lowered risk of type 2 diabetes. In recognition of the range of benefits that green space offers, we have added to the national performance framework a new indicator about access to local green space.

We are also supporting projects that enhance green space within communities. The central Scotland green network, which is a national development in “Ambition, Opportunity, Place—Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework”, is Europe’s largest green-space project and is home to 3.5 million people. In our programme for Government, we committed to its on-going delivery. The Scottish Government provides the Central Scotland Green Network Trust with about £950,000 a year to drive that.

As well as protecting green space, we need to plan ahead to deliver the right homes in the right places, as many members have reflected. Planning should facilitate economic investment that supports jobs, and we need to ensure that communities have access to the facilities and services that they need. We support a plan-led system to achieve that: that touches on Monica Lennon’s point about the many purposes and objectives of planning.

Green belts are a tool to guide the future development of our settlements by directing developments to the most appropriate and sustainable locations. Green-belt designations and related planning decisions are, of course, for planning authorities in the first instance. However, “Scottish Planning Policy” is clear that for most settlements, a green belt is not necessary as other policies can provide an appropriate basis for directing development.

There are strong protections in place for green belts in Scotland. Although “green belt” is a well-known planning term, there are common misconceptions about it. The green belt’s purpose is not to prohibit development altogether and it is not intended to protect natural heritage or open space: other environmental designations and policies are available for that. The green belt needs to evolve as part of the development plan. Local authorities should keep green-belt boundaries under review. Such reviews can support settlement strategies by directing development to the right location and helping to maintain the long-term integrity of the green belt.

Planning has to make the best use of the land that we have available—a point that a number of members made. It has to support development that meets our needs for homes, jobs and services. It can ensure that future development is designed with existing environmental assets in mind. New development and investment can also provide the opportunity to provide access to green space for more people by providing enhanced links.

How the balance is to be struck is a matter for local authorities in consultation with communities, rather than for Parliament, to decide. The Government is working hard to improve the planning system and people’s trust in it.

With the Planning (Scotland) Bill we have an opportunity to create a more streamlined and confident system that makes a real and positive difference to people’s lives and their places.

We very much believe that community power is a critical part of the planning process, so it is positive that communities are working together to share their views on how their places should evolve. By supporting the bill’s provisions to create local place plans, we can do our bit to create more of that.

I appreciate that we will, as we progress with the bill, come back to a range of planning issues time and again, as Parliament goes through its appropriate processes.

I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. A wide range of matters have been covered and I am sorry that I cannot reflect on them all in the time that is available. The debate has been a good opportunity to hear members’ views. I hope that it has been worth members of the public’s while to have opportunity to hear MSPs debate some of the intricacies around planning a little bit and—which is more important—the benefits of green space.

13:28 Meeting suspended.  

14:15 On resuming—