Meeting of the Parliament 26 January 2017
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a proud member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. As a chartered town planner, I am sure that members will believe me when I say that I approach this debate with great enthusiasm—although George Adam has given me a run for my money in that regard. I should also say, for the record, that I am a serving councillor in South Lanarkshire Council.
Where we live and our surroundings can determine how happy we are, how much we earn and how long we live. The built and natural environment around us shapes our daily experiences, as Ben Macpherson said, provides the setting for economic activity, influences how we interact with other people and, as I was pleased to hear Kevin Stewart say, has a very real impact on our health and wellbeing.
Because of that, decisions about the use of land and buildings and the green spaces and transport corridors in between should always be guided by what is in the public interest—a principle that is stated in the Labour amendment.
The planning system was created out of a vision of and commitment to a healthier and more equal society. Patrick Geddes, born in Aberdeenshire in 1854, is regarded as the pioneer of modern town planning. Geddes championed a mode of planning that was concerned with primary human needs. He believed that to understand and improve a community, one had to be a part of it. We can still learn from his teachings and principles.
Other pioneers of planning, such as Sir Ebenezer Howard, who founded the Town and Country Planning Association in 1899, held utopian and progressive ideas. They saw planning as being concerned with all aspects of human behaviour, from art and culture to education and the nature of work. They recognised the intrinsic value of beauty in design and the natural environment to people’s health and wellbeing. The approach transformed the way in which society thought about and built places.
The development of new settlements in the interwar period led to a transformation in housing standards and sparked a worldwide interest in town planning; but it is safe to say that if we fast-forward, from the 1980s town planning became unfashionable.
Some members might be familiar with Michael Heseltine’s infamous quote:
“There are countless jobs tied up in the filing cabinets of the planning regime.”
My concern about our approach to today’s debate is that we seem to be accepting that the housing crisis that we face around the country is somehow due to plans for the homes that we need being locked up in planners’ inboxes. Despite the tone of some of what I have heard today, I hope that that is not the case. When I think of the great places that we have in Scotland and of the professionalism of the planners here, I hope that the Government will reject the characterisation that Michael Heseltine espoused.
Housing is a major concern for us all. In 2014 and 2015, a number of major reports on housing in Scotland were published: the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors published its report “Building a Better Scotland” in 2014; the commission for housing and wellbeing that was set up by Shelter Scotland reported in 2015; and the Scottish Government published the “Joint Housing Delivery Plan for Scotland” that same year.
RICS set out a number of recommendations, which are not all about the planning system. It recommended that a Scottish housing observatory be established; that the
“post of Housing Minister is elevated to a Cabinet Secretary position”
—that could be a promotion for our esteemed colleague, Kevin Stewart; and that
“the Scottish Government, in partnership with planning authorities, undertakes a review to assess the nature of existing planning consents in Scotland.”
I do not know whether the minister wants to address those points now, but we would like to hear about that in his closing speech.
We have talked a bit today about collaboration and equity. Ben Macpherson spoke about third-party rights of appeal, and we have to change that language. The community and the people who live in an area are in no way third parties; they should be front and centre, and it is unfortunate that that has been dismissed out of hand. We should all look at that, because however much we want to believe that front loading is the answer, it has not achieved the level of confidence that we need.
Like many members, I know of planning applications in which people in my community have got involved who, afterwards, felt deflated and the worse for doing so. Kevin Stewart knows about the incinerator in my council ward. An appeal went to the Scottish Government and sat for 12 months, after which the only recourse for the community would have been a judicial review, the legal bar for which is very high and which would have cost in the region of £30,000 to £50,000—so the community is priced out of doing it.
I have only 30 seconds remaining—Ben Macpherson took all the extra time and good will—but I hope that the Labour amendment will be taken in good faith. We believe that health and the reduction of inequality are at the heart of the planning system. The place standard toolkit that is being promoted is a great idea, but it has no statutory footing. We would like a shift towards putting health and equality on a level playing field with the environmental impact and the way in which that is assessed.
We need to keep a door open to looking at how communities can be involved. I pay tribute to the representatives of Planning Democracy and other organisations who are in the public gallery. They are giving up their time to be here today and they support communities day in day out. We have to keep an open mind on community involvement.