Current Petitions

Yes.

Members have listened to the arguments that the petitioners have put forward on the three petitions. I do not intend to go back over those arguments, but each petitioner made a strong case. They won the argument, but unfortunately they still face losing the playing fields in their areas.There are issues that we must consider before we move on. The main issue is probably that the petitioners—certainly the Laighdykes residents group—are frustrated because they have gone down the proper road and used the proper procedures to raise their concerns, but have come up against a brick wall whenever they have done so. They think that the local authority has ridden roughshod over their objections and concerns and that the Scottish Executive has not listened to their case. Obviously, the Public Petitions Committee's role is to facilitate a good hearing for the petitioners and to ensure that their case is heard. The committee has done that; it has allowed the petitioners to have their say and to make their case. As I said, they won the argument but—unfortunately—that does not mean much when people are faced by local government and central Government.The petitioners have consistently asked why councils should have local and strategic plans and why there should be national planning policy guidelines if they are simply to be ignored when it suits local authorities to ignore them. That certainly seems to have happened with Laighdykes. Saltcoats and Ardrossan are also losing substantial playing fields. There have been contraventions of the local plan and national planning policy guidelines, but the proposals will almost certainly go ahead.According to a recent survey, 30 of the 32 councils in Scotland are building a total of 300 schools using public-private partnerships. Problems arise because the multinational consortiums behind this programme of school building do not want to refurbish old schools; they simply want to build new schools on adjacent land. An additional problem in Laighdykes was that the land adjacent to the school was not a school playing field, but a public playing field. As a result, the local authority had to appropriate the land so that it could be allowed to build on it.That brings us to a recent survey by Andy Wightman and Jim Perman on common good land, which is an issue that we have not really considered before. Given its history, the land in Laighdykes should almost certainly have been designated as common good land, because it was purchased by the former burgh councils and taken over by the subsequent local authority after reorganisation. However, despite that, the local authority has simply appropriated the land and it is likely that a school will be built on it. We know from reports that there has been almost no audit of the common good land and playing field land that is being lost to build the 300 schools.I turn to the role of sportscotland in the petitions and in helping the committee with its deliberations. The Holmhills Wood community park action group estimate that 320 acres of playing fields will be lost to school building, which equates to 180 football pitches. Sportscotland, which is supposed to encourage people throughout Scotland to take part in sport, has gone along with the plan. My criticism of that organisation is quite strong: in my only personal contact with sportscotland when I was helping the Laighdykes residents group to save the playing fields in Saltcoats, the senior sportscotland representative certainly supported the council's proposals. It was quite clear that he wanted to accommodate the council's plans and, as the papers that I have submitted to the committee show, sportscotland has argued that it was able to support the plans because they would provide enhanced facilities such as a running track, floodlights and all-weather pitches. However, those enhanced facilities will be fenced off and people will be charged to use them. Local kids will probably not be able to afford to play on the floodlit pitches; they will certainly not be able to have informal kickabouts, because the land will be fenced off. Facilities are not enhanced if local people cannot use them.I am really disappointed by sportscotland's attitude. Obviously, my specific example is what has happened at Laighdykes. Such areas are fenced off before a school is even built, so Laighdykes will lose its National Playing Fields Association-recommended area.I am pleased that we have been able to let the petitioners have their say and make their case, but the land will be lost forever and we will not get it back. It seems that the committee's only option is to refer the petition to the Communities Committee to inform its debate on the planning bill, which will come too late for the communities that have petitioned us. The land will be lost. I just wish that we could do more to protect playing fields throughout Scotland and to support the petitioners, who I think won their case.

Obviously, I am not happy with the outcome, but I accept that the Public Petitions Committee has done everything that it can. I agree that the committee should send the petitions to the Communities Committee.