Finally, we must consider three other petitions, all of which relate to a similar issue. PE422, from Mr James Docherty, is on the protection of school playing fields and PE430, from Mrs M Glendinning, and PE454, from Mr Peter Watson, are both on the sale of playing fields. The petitions are all concerned with the adequacy of current procedures for the safeguarding of playing fields. Two of the petitions are concerned about a potential conflict of interest whereby local authorities both sell land that they own and grant planning permission for the development of such land.I seek members' comments on the petitions and on the options for action.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
School Playing Fields (PE422 and PE430) Playing Fields (PE454)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Bristow Muldoon Lab 4
- Adam Ingram SNP 1
- John Scott Con 1
- Robin Harper Green 1
- Maureen Macmillan Lab 1
The record
9 contributionsI am familiar with the petition from Ayr. The petition concerns the constituency that is next door to John Scott's. There is a lot of public concern about what is seen to be a conflict of interest whereby the local authority advertises for sale for housing development a playing field that is designated in the local plan as an area for recreational use. We need to consider those issues to maintain public confidence in the system.The other aspect is that local authorities are supposed to set an example by conserving open spaces such as playing fields. In their local planning procedures, local authorities should take a lead in maintaining recreational land. However, it would appear that local authorities are under such financial pressure that they are looking to sell off such assets. That goes against all the planning guidance that has been issued by the Executive.I believe that we must write to the Executive on the matter and I suggest that we consider option B of the options for action, which suggests that the current procedures are not particularly adequate for safeguarding playing fields.
I agree with Adam Ingram. The situation is unattractive because South Ayrshire Council is set to benefit from the sale. I point out that the council is not in my constituency and Adam is more qualified to comment than I am. Nevertheless, the council is setting itself up as the judge and jury. It makes the sale, then grants planning permission and will benefit to the tune of £1.6 million. That is worrying.Adam rightly raises the point that the draft national planning policy guideline 3 states:"Furthermore, local authorities should lead by example by resisting the development of open space and playing fields in their ownership."That could not be clearer, although I am not sure when that draft guideline is due to come into action. I am not sure that it is acceptable that—as I understand it—all that is required in that situation is that the Scottish ministers should be notified. That position should be reviewed and responses sought from ministers. I concur with Adam that option B is the one that we should pursue.
One of the biggest postbags I have received in the past three years was from people registering their concern over the way that the planning system is working. Letter after letter was about councils allowing open space to be used for building and other developments.The Parliament and the Executive should be taking up urgently the general issue of planning. The City of Edinburgh Council, for example, has its own development subsidiary, and I wonder whether the Scottish Executive could even tell us how many playing fields have disappeared over the past three years, let alone over the past 10 years. I know that a substantial number have disappeared over the past 10 years.We should tell the Executive that it should be writing to local authorities, pointing out what NPPG 3 says and indicating that where that advice is contravened, the Executive will be calling the local authorities to account on it.
I have no problem with the committee taking the route that has been suggested, which is that we write to the Executive and ask for its views and clarification on the planning guidelines and processes.I note that NPPG 11, which is referred to in one of the letters from an Executive officer to Steve Farrell, says that disposals of recreational space"should only be entertained if open space analysis demonstrates that the land is surplus to requirements, taking account of its recreational and amenity value."The same letter later says that"any development that a planning authority considers to be a significant departure from a structure or local plan"must be referred to ministers. That then puts ministers in a position to call in particular applications if they feel that that is appropriate.It seems to me that the Executive is addressing some of the issues. However, I have no problem with writing to the Minister for Social Justice to seek clarification of the Executive's position. We could also raise questions as to how many such applications have been made in recent years so that we can have an idea of the scale of the issue.
It is death by a thousand cuts.
Are we agreed?Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of the meeting. I thank those members of the public who have just come in—I am sorry that we are not going on a bit longer for you—and thank the members for their attendance.
Meeting closed at 13:45.
In this meeting
Everything on 6 Jun 2002 →- Scottish Parliament Transport and the Environment Committee Thursday 6 June 2002 (Morning) Committee business · 2
- Rail Inquiry Committee business · 170
- Petitions Petitions · 36
- Petitions Petitions · 9
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.