Petition PE813, on the loss of playing fields and recreational open space, is by Ronnie McNicol on behalf of Laighdykes residents group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament"to urge the Scottish Executive to review existing planning procedures and guidance to ensure that they are sufficient to prevent local authorities from using playing field land for development purposes."The Transport and the Environment Committee considered PE422, PE430 and PE454, which also related to playing fields, between March 2002 and March 2003. At its meeting on 5 Oct 2004, the Public Petitions Committee considered PE771, which is a further petition on playing fields. The committee has received responses from the Scottish Executive and sportscotland on that petition and awaits a response from the National Playing Fields Association. As PE771 and PE813 raise similar issues on local authority planning procedures and playing fields, I suggest that the committee may wish to link the petitions and consider what further action should be taken on the issues that they raise.Are members happy with that?
Official Report · Committee
New Petitions
Planning Procedures (Playing Field Land) (PE813)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 10
- Campbell Martin Ind 8
- Sandra White SNP 2
- Helen Eadie Lab 1
- Phil Gallie Con 1
The record
22 contributionsI have a slight concern about linking the two petitions. Although they seek a similar outcome, they have been lodged for different reasons, given the effects that planning procedures have on playing field provision in certain areas. There is a big difference between—
I understand that, but we are looking at the petitions in terms of the outcome, which is the same. I will outline what PE771 asked for, then I will come straight to you.PE771, by Olena Stewart, called on the Scottish Parliament"to urge the Scottish 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 in relation to the loss of playing fields."The responses from the Scottish Executive and sportscotland have been circulated to the committee. Despite letters from the clerks dated 6 October 2004 and 21 January 2005, no response has been received from the National Playing Fields Association. Campbell, do you wish to speak in respect of PE813?
Yes. First, I am delighted that so many people from North Ayrshire have battled through the snow to get to the meeting today. I commend them for doing so. I should probably declare an interest in that I have supported the petitioners and I live in the community that would be adversely affected if the development that the petition relates to goes ahead.I said that I have concerns about the linking of the two petitions. That is not to diminish the Ayr petition or any other petition that might seek a similar outcome. If the development that the Ayr petitioners mention were to go ahead, it would mean the loss of some playing fields in Ayr. However, the development that North Ayrshire Council proposes, which sparked PE813, would mean the loss of the only sports pitches in the two towns of Ardrossan and Saltcoats. I grew up and played football in Ardrossan—the thought of me playing football might seem strange now, but I did. At that point, there were four Ardrossan teams and it was a source of annoyance that teams from Ardrossan had to play their home games in Saltcoats, which is where the Laighdykes playing fields are located—they are located virtually on the border, as it were, between Ardrossan and Saltcoats.For some time there was another football pitch on Central Avenue in Ardrossan, but the local authority sold it off and it is now home to a distribution warehouse, which does not help the population to keep fit in any way. If the proposal were to go ahead, it would mean the serious diminution of available playing fields in Ardrossan and Saltcoats. It would mean that teams not only from Ardrossan, but from Saltcoats, would have to play in the next town along the Ayrshire coast, which is Stevenston. That is what the local authority proposes would happen while it was building the school on the playing fields and that situation would probably continue once the school was built. To put that in political terms, it would mean that teams from Ardrossan and Saltcoats would play their home games in a different parliamentary constituency and region. Stevenston is in the South of Scotland and Ardrossan and Saltcoats are in the West of Scotland, which is the region that I represent. That gives some perspective on how far those teams would be expected to move. The driving force behind the petition is the fact that the only playing fields in Ardrossan and Saltcoats would be lost. The National Playing Fields Association recommends that there should be 6 acres of open-space playing fields for every 1,000 people. The combined population of Ardrossan and Saltcoats is around 23,000, which would mean that, at the moment, Ardrossan and Saltcoats should have 138 acres of open-space playing fields. As I have said, Laighdykes is the only open-space playing field in Ardrossan and Saltcoats and it constitutes only 36 acres. If North Ayrshire Council's proposed development were to go ahead, it would take up 12 of those 36 acres, which would mean that the available playing fields in Ardrossan and Saltcoats would be reduced to 24 acres. That is why the petitioners have submitted this petition and it is also why this petition is different from the others. Those petitions concern reductions in the size and number of playing fields in certain areas; PE813 concerns a proposal that would completely wipe out the playing fields in Ardrossan and Saltcoats.The petitioners are asking for a review of the planning legislation and guidance because the proposed developer, the local authority, owns the land on which the development will be built and is also the education authority—which is relevant because it is proposed that a school be built on the site—and the planning authority. Basically, the local authority is seeking to build a school on its own ground and to give itself planning permission for that. We are therefore asking for a review of and a change in the planning law. We need to consider whether local authorities that are in the position in which North Ayrshire Council has been should, under planning law, have to prove exceptional circumstances before they can even think about developing playing fields. The onus should not be on the people to have to oppose such proposals; it should be on the local authority to prove that a situation is exceptional and that they must proceed with a development at a certain location. Planning law should stipulate that developments should not be permitted where the minimum provision of playing fields for the population has not been reached. Under such a condition, as long as the figure of 138 acres had not been reached in Ardrossan and Saltcoats, no planning application could even be considered. That is why the petitioners were motivated to lodge their petition, and I am delighted that they managed to get here today. I hope that the committee will take on board the various aspects of the petition and others that call for a similar outcome.
I appreciate the points that Campbell Martin makes. I understand that there are specific issues relating to PE813. The similarity with the other relevant petitions relates to exactly what Campbell was describing, with the conflict of interest within local authorities and their different departments. The related petition also asked that that be addressed.
You could perhaps clarify this for me. You have spoken about linking the two petitions concerned. Would that mean that a determination of the petition relating to Ayr would be exactly the same as for PE813?
No. If different issues came up, we would have to ask specific questions.
I will explain why I ask. I think it is written somewhere that, if sportscotland maintains an objection, ministers can call the application in. If sportscotland did not object in the case of Ayr but did object in the case of Saltcoats, would the petition concerning Saltcoats be considered on its own merits?
As with the petition that we considered earlier, we cannot look at the specific planning application. This committee cannot sit in judgment on whether the planning decision that was made by North Ayrshire Council was right or wrong. The council is the planning authority.
I accept that.
This is where the link with the other petitions comes in. I am not talking about only PE771, but about petitions that were considered during the previous parliamentary session, including PE454. They are linked: in each case, the question is whether enough guidance is given to local authorities on planning applications. Is stricter legislation required under planning regulations? What role does sportscotland have in relation to the protection of playing fields? The link lies in the outcomes and in what is required to address the matters that have arisen.
On that basis, I would be happy for a link to be made to PE813, as long as we make our position clear and ask the Executive about its position on changing the planning laws so that there might be a presumption against such developments if the required amount of space is not available for playing fields.
I thank Campbell Martin for the information that he has brought us, which has been very useful. I appreciate the fact that some members of the public have travelled a long way to hear the petition being addressed. We will want to give the matter proper consideration, rather than simply combining our consideration of the various petitions involved just for the sake of convenience. The issues raised in PE813 are specific, and will need to be addressed, but that petition relates to others that we are considering. As the desired outcome is the same, we can address more than one of the petitions at one time. We must focus on the matter of whether planning regulations in Scotland allow the protection that the petitioners are requesting. I would be happy to hear from other members about what we should do about the petition.
It is wise to link together the Ayr and Saltcoats petitions. They relate to needs in the respective areas as well as to a wider need. What timescale applies to the issue? Is there an urgency about the application in Saltcoats?
As with the committee's discussion about the pylons, there is such an urgency, as the application is being processed at the moment. Outline planning permission has been granted for the school to be built on the site of the playing fields, and the development is being progressed by the local authority at the moment.
Obviously, that is a problem; we will need to get answers quickly. The Executive is looking at new planning legislation for playing fields. Although I cannot remember the exact date, I think that it is due in spring this year, along with the planning consultation. It is important that the Executive and the Communities Committee know that this is happening. Sportscotland has said that the Executive is looking to review national planning policy guideline 11. It is important that we keep an eye on how it is reviewed. Councils can effectively give themselves planning permission and yet there is a direct conflict of interest between the gain that they make from selling off land that belongs to them and the planning function that they carry out. The Executive should pull in those applications. Perhaps Campbell Martin could take a look at that. In the meantime, I suggest that we write to sportscotland to check the timescale for the review of NPPG 11.
In terms of the consultation on the planning bill that Sandra White mentioned, I think that the timescale is for the white paper to be produced in the spring. I think that the bill is to be published in May. We should seek clarification on the review of NPPG 11.
Perhaps we could write to the Executive along those lines, asking it to respond to the issues and concerns that sportscotland has raised. The concerns that sportscotland has raised are legitimate: they address the principles that lie behind PE771 and PE813.
I would like to hear the Executive's response to sportscotland's concerns. The response would answer the specific issue that Campbell Martin raised.
First, like Campbell Martin, I have an interest to declare. I live in the vicinity of the playing field that is the subject of PE771. I also have knowledge of the area that is the subject of PE813, as I was a councillor there for a number of years. That said, it is far too long ago to be of relevance now. I have every sympathy with the points that Campbell Martin made on the subject. Although I realise that the Public Petitions Committee cannot address individual planning applications and considerations, the point that Campbell Martin made about the targets for playing fields per head of population is a valid one. In view of the circumstances, the proposal for Laighdykes is ludicrous.From my involvement in the committee from its early days, I can say that petitions are constantly being submitted in which playing field erosion is the name of the game. We listen to debates in the Parliament about problems of obesity and concerns about children's lack of participation in sports, and similar issues. The Executive can do something about the subject of PE771 and PE813. There must not be this constant erosion of playing field areas. It is staggering that local authorities can give themselves consent to go ahead with these applications against what they agreed in their local and structure plans. That is particularly the case when authorities automatically rule out other applications that cut across their local or structure plans.The issues that are addressed in PE813 apply right across Scotland; not just in Saltcoats and Ardrossan. The Public Petitions Committee should make the strongest recommendations to the Scottish Executive to put a stop to this practice.
I have a final point to make, which leads on from what Phil Gallie said. In answer to a parliamentary question on 5 May 2004, Frank McAveety stated:"Primary responsibility for the protection of playing fields lies with local authorities".—Official Report, Written Answers, 5 May 2004; S2W-7718. In this case, it is a local authority that wants to build on the land. The Executive needs to give a definitive answer to the question of what it will do to prevent that happening.
That is a specific question and we would like the Executive to answer it. We also want to raise the question of the timescale for the review of NPPG 11. Are members happy that we take the issue forward to the Executive on that basis? Are members happy that we ask for those clarifications and for a response to the concerns that sportscotland raised?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 23 Feb 2005 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 23 February 2005 Petitions · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 66
- New Petitions Petitions · 87
- New Petitions Petitions · 82
- New Petitions Petitions · 3
- New Petitions Petitions · 22
- New Petitions Petitions · 13
- Current Petitions Petitions · 1
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 5
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 3
- Current Petitions Petitions · 2
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.