The next petition is PE771, by Olena Stewart, which calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to consider whether there is sufficient guidance for local authorities to safeguard the provision of playing fields and recreational open space, and to establish whether additional legislation is required to cover conflicts of interest within local authorities on planning matters that relate to the loss of playing fields.David Ferguson is here to give a brief statement in support of the petition. He is accompanied by Olena Stewart and Kenneth Wilson. I welcome you to the committee. You have three minutes for your statement, after which we will discuss the matter.
Official Report · Committee
New Petitions
Recreation Open Space (Provision and Planning Regulations) (PE771)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 7
- David Ferguson 5
- Rosie Kane SSP 4
- Mike Watson Lab 3
- Kenneth Wilson 2
- John Scott Con 2
- Jackie Baillie Lab 2
- Olena Stewart 1
- Adam Ingram SNP 1
- Helen Eadie Lab 1
The record
28 contributions
David Ferguson
link
Convener, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the committee for this opportunity to address it. I hope sincerely that I can articulate our argument as eloquently as Jackie Baillie did for her petition. I would also like to thank John Scott MSP and, particularly, Adam Ingram MSP, for their assistance and guidance in the petition's preparation. It is most reassuring for us to receive cross-party co-operation on such an emotive issue.Obviously, we can speak in detail only about the old racecourse in Ayr, but we were most surprised when we realised just how widespread the problem is in Scotland. The National Playing Fields Association has identified 20 locations in which playing fields are under threat. National planning policy guideline 11, which was published in 1997, and planning advice note 65, which was published in 2003, are supposed to protect playing fields and open space. However, it is obvious that local councils—for whatever reason, but more than likely for financial expediency—are choosing to ignore Government advice and policy; hence our presence here today.In Ayr, South Ayrshire Council proposes to build a primary school campus on the old racecourse. That priceless asset is common good land, which was given to the people of Ayr by royal charter in the 13th century. It is one of the most significant open spaces in the town of Ayr. Although it is recognised as such in current and emerging local plans, the planning department has been considering the council's application for eight months. That situation makes us very nervous.It appears that the council's education, culture and lifelong learning committee is asking its colleagues on the planning committee to ignore every policy that protects open space and to grant permission for the application. Thereafter, their colleagues on the policy and resources committee would be asked to hand over the common good land that would be necessary to accommodate the school campus.South Ayrshire Council claims that only 14 or 15 per cent of the old racecourse would be lost, but the planning application is for the entire area. If the proposal is not stopped, there is no way the remainder of the old racecourse could be protected.As things stand, it seems that the people of Ayr—who believe passionately in retention of the old racecourse, as you can see from the number of people who have signed the petition and who have objected to the planning application—are powerless to stop the development. Our local problem is reflected across the country. For that reason, we respectfully request that the Scottish Parliament consider our petition.
Thank you for your presentation. Do members have questions for Mr Ferguson and his colleagues?
Can you tell me a bit about the background to the planning application? I believe that it is for a primary school.
David Ferguson
link
The planning application is for what is described as a "primary school campus". The support papers describe it—
Kenneth Wilson
link
As"a lifelong learning centre for the 21st century."
David Ferguson
link
But the planning application is for a campus. We have not been able to determine, or to elicit from the local authority, exactly what will be contained within the campus. The support papers lead us to believe that the proposals are for more than simply the transfer of the current Ayr Grammar School to the old racecourse.
You said that 14 or 15 per cent of the area would be lost. Do you suspect that that would represent a foot in the door, and that a larger area might be taken? I live adjacent to one of the playing fields mentioned in the sportscotland document that we have been given. Sometimes it seems that planning permission is granted for one reason, but you end up with something completely different. For example, planning permission given for a coffee shop will result in the building of private housing. Are you concerned that something other than what you are already aware of will happen?
David Ferguson
link
As I said, the planning application is for the entire area of the old racecourse. The education department has gone to great lengths to stress publicly that only 14 or 15 per cent of the land will be required. However, that was before it received a traffic impact study. It has now received that study and the recommendations contained within it suggest that more than 14 or 15 per cent of the area will be required.We cannot see the mechanism whereby the local authority, after granting change of use for the entire area and building a school on part of it, can then seek a change of use back to recreational use for the rest of it. We simply do not believe that that will happen.
Perhaps I can give the committee a little more local insight. There is no question that a new school is needed to replace Ayr Grammar School—even the petitioners would agree with that. However, what people who live in the area of the old racecourse find hard to accept is that playing fields are being pursued for the development. Eight other sites were scoped by the local authority, seven of which were formally ruled out prior to the consultation. A site is currently being pursued that enjoys the protection of existing guidelines, but that does not yet appear to have been taken into consideration by the planning authority. Since the consultation ended, there have been two planning meetings, but an actual application has not been forthcoming. One wonders whether the local authority is having difficulty making a case, given the guidelines. In my view—and it is probably everybody's view—the council should have considered other sites. It should still be doing so. My favoured site is the Seafield site.When petitions PE422, PE430 and PE454 were considered by the previous Transport and the Environment Committee, of which I was a member, it appeared that guidance on the use of playing fields would be prepared by sportscotland. Members will see that in the Official Report. I do not know whether that guidance has appeared, and sportscotland may have some questions to answer in that regard. I do not know whether the Executive has not helped that organisation with the introduction of guidance, but it was down to sportscotland to do that and I do not think that it has. The problem is not restricted to the Ayr case; it is indicative of a national problem, as is shown by the list, helpfully submitted by the petitioners, of other playing fields that are under threat from similar developments. We definitely need to get on to sportscotland about the matter.
Do the petitioners want to comment on anything that John Scott said? Is that your reading of the situation? I am concerned that although your petition highlights the situation in Ayr, we have to look at the general situation. John Scott has gone into some detail about the specific problem in Ayr, but are you aware of the same problem in other authorities? Have you spoken to people in similar situations elsewhere, where comparable concerns arise?
David Ferguson
link
Our main contact point has been the National Playing Fields Association, which has furnished us with information. We have had correspondence with—
Olena Stewart
link
Rose Harvie in Dumbarton. She told us that a similar thing happened there about four years ago. The council wanted to build a sheriff court on common good land and the people of Dumbarton won their case—the council did not build the sheriff court on common good land. We have attended the football events on the racecourse and many people have come up to us to ask, "What's to happen to the racecourse?" and we have explained that the council wants to build on it. People told us that the same thing was happening in their area—the council says that there is a need for a primary school. In the Dumbarton area, it was not only a primary school that was built—there was also a learning centre. Many of the other schools were closed down and all the children were bussed to the learning centre. So the same situation is happening in other areas.
link
As the MSP who represents Dumbarton, that last part of Olena Stewart's answer is not accurate, but your first reference to common good land in Dumbarton is absolutely accurate. It is important to set that straight for the record. Having said that, I would like to ask the petitioners a general question that relates to their experience. As I understand the current situation, when local authorities either own land or have a direct interest in it—in other words, they are the ones who want to build the school—the case must automatically be referred to the Scottish Executive for consideration. In that context, the Scottish Executive would naturally have regard to its own guidance on the use of sports fields and other related matters. Do you think that that safeguard is inadequate? Do you think that further safeguards should be put in place and, if so, what?
Kenneth Wilson
link
The Scottish Office produced NPPG 11 on open spaces in 1997, which states everything as Jackie Baillie said. However, there must have been a problem with that because the Scottish Executive produced PAN 65 in January 2003, which says: "You are not taking our advice in NPPG 11 and the word is that you are selling off playing fields for capital receipts and that is shocking." The problem is widespread and it appears that local authorities are ignoring the advice from the Scottish Executive. This is not the first time that people from Ayr have come to Edinburgh to seek help to stop the council behaving in an inappropriate way. There was a petition to the Scottish Privy Council on 19 September 1573 whereby the indwellers of the Sandgate complained that the council was not spending the common good to clear the Sandgate of the sand that was blowing in. In that case, the Privy Council decided simply to caution Ayr town council. We hope that we might get something better than a simple caution from our Parliament. The reason why the indwellers of the Sandgate did not go to the Parliament, but to the Privy Council, was that, as a royal burgh, we returned two members to your predecessor Parliament.
I have a couple of points relating to the correspondence that we have received on the issues that were raised previously with the Transport and the Environment Committee. The guidance that is being discussed seems to be more specific than what you are looking for. You are talking in general terms about common good land that is used for sports facilities and so on. I presume that that is where NPPG 11 comes into what you are saying.The letter that we have received from sportscotland talks specifically about standards for playing field provision at schools, which is not quite what you are talking about. That concerns me. The letter from the then minister, Margaret Curran, states:"The Executive has no separate plans to develop guidance on this topic."She again refers to"guidance on playing field provision at schools".The sportscotland guideline seems too narrow to encompass what you are looking for. We cannot go into the individual case, but it seems to me that there must be some means of ensuring that local authorities abide by NPPG 11 and do not just ride roughshod over it, to use an apt analogy. That seems to be what is happening in Ayr.I would like sportscotland to give us its view on the wider issue, rather than on the narrow one. The sportscotland letter says that it is basically happy with how things are operating. It states that"sportscotland takes its role in protecting playing fields very seriously and … the planning system is working effectively to this end".It also states that it minimises the number of grass pitches that are lost each year. To some extent, sportscotland is saying that it does not see a major problem but that guidance would help in relation to schools. However, the issue goes beyond schools. For that reason, we should ask sportscotland to look at the broader picture. Whether that will help in the short term, in the immediate case in Ayr, I am not sure.
I agree with Mike Watson that the issue goes beyond schools. Most of us will know of land such as this in our communities, which is lost without, it would seem, much consultation or discussion with the community or even any measure of how the land is used. I know that people used to go to the Queen's Park recs. The land is not organised or structured in any way; it is just available to the community. The least that we can do is find a way of protecting such areas before we lose them. The problem is Scotland-wide, and I am glad that the petitioners have come here to point that out. It has given me an opportunity to speak about Queen's Park, of which I have some experience. The kids in the community there use the land regularly, and more organised and structured use is also made of it, but parts of it are now being sold off. It would be good if the Scottish Parliament could find a way of overseeing what the councils are doing and ensuring that we protect the land and communities' right to have access to sport.
Adam Ingram is with us this morning because he has an interest in the petition. Adam, do you wish to say something or question the petitioners?
I agree with much of what my colleagues have said in their questioning. It is worth reminding ourselves what Executive policy, in the form of the national planning policy guidelines, is designed to do. The guidelines are designed specifically to protect playing fields and open recreational space. Paragraph 30 of NPPG 11 exhorts councils"to lead by example in resisting the development of council owned land".The situation in Ayr is not uncommon. Like John Scott, I served on the Transport and the Environment Committee in the previous session, which dealt with a number of petitions to the same effect. In this case, one arm of South Ayrshire Council is hell bent on driving a coach and horses through the guidance. It is so determined to push the project forward that it has made a commitment to carry the plan through"irrespective of timescale or source of funding"if the campaign to save the sports pitches creates problems for the preferred public-private partnership funding packages. One wonders what kind of influence that has on members who are in the planning authority as well. I support the provision of a new school. However, the terms of NPPG 11 are quite clear. For example, paragraph 47 states:"There should be a presumption against redevelopment of playing fields or sport facilities, public or private." That should have led the council to rule out this proposition right at the outset. Why has that not happened? Is it because the guidelines are too weak or because it is thought that Executive policy can be opted into or out of as local circumstances arise? It is high time that we had a look at the implementation of Executive policy and to what extent it is being followed on the ground. I believe that the South Ayrshire Council example is just one among many. I urge the committee to take that message on board and to take it to other committees in the Parliament, or to whomever you decide to take it. Thanks very much for letting me speak.
Do members have comments, or recommendations for what to do with the petition?
I reiterate the point about writing to sportscotland on the broader issue of land that is used for structured or unstructured sport, but is not necessarily associated with schools.
I do not agree with what sportscotland said about blaes pitches being lost, but replaced with all-year-round pitches. That assumes that everybody wants to play five-a-side football on the replacement pitches. I do not even agree with its analysis of the situation. Perhaps we need to speak to sportscotland about that.
The letter we have from sportscotland was received almost two years ago, so things might have changed in the interim.
Perhaps we should write again to the Scottish Executive and the National Playing Fields Association enclosing a copy of the Official Report of the debate, as we usually do, because there has been material on the broader range of issues.
link
Can we pose to the Scottish Executive the specific question whether it is concerned about the adequacy of the guidance and the safeguards put in place in planning that would prevent or prohibit local authorities from behaving in such a manner? It would be helpful to make that comment in relation not just to these circumstances, but in general.
Helen Eadie raises a good point about the National Playing Fields Association. We should definitely seek comment from it, including comment on the point that Jackie Baillie made about the planning guidelines, because it might have telling comments to make.
Are members happy to deal with the petition in that manner?Members indicated agreement.
We will let Adam Ingram know what responses we receive from the different organisations and give him an opportunity to comment on them.
In this meeting
Everything on 5 Oct 2004 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 5 October 2004 Petitions · 2
- New Petitions Petitions · 35
- New Petitions Petitions · 28
- New Petitions Petitions · 47
- New Petitions Petitions · 24
- New Petitions Petitions · 3
- New Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 6
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 8
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 14
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.