Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Local Government and Communities Committee 31 October 2018

31 Oct 2018 · S5 · Local Government and Communities Committee

Item of business

Planning (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Simpson, Graham Con Central Scotland Watch on SPTV

Amendment 324 deals with biodiversity. I have spoken quite a bit about the need to deliver more houses in the right places, but that should not be at the expense of biodiversity. The concept of net biodiversity gain is increasingly well recognised in environmental assessments. It requires any development to leave biodiversity in a better state than it was before the development. It is particularly important to secure that requirement as there is currently no statutory system for ensuring that impacts on biodiversity are mitigated outwith designated sites. Residual, cumulative effects are particularly hard to address. A requirement to provide net biodiversity gain would help Scotland to meet its obligations and targets. England’s 25-year environment plan states: “We will seek to embed a ‘net environmental gain’ principle for development to deliver environmental improvements locally and nationally.” Scotland should also be looking to achieve that. Amendment 324 is not particularly taxing. It provides that if a planning authority thinks that there could be an effect on biodiversity as a result of a development, it should consider that—just “consider” it. Having considered that, the authority should grant permission only if it is satisfied that there will be a net positive effect on biodiversity from the development. If we want to improve habitats and make great places for people to live, that would be one way of doing it. Amendment 324 ties in nicely with other amendments that focus on health. Amendment 323, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, deals with the provision of specialist toilet facilities in large developments. The amendment is a thing of beauty—much like Mr Balfour. We initially thought that the issue might sit better in building regulations, but on reflection, we think that planning can help. We support amendment 323A, in the name of Mary Fee, which would add to the list of buildings that amendment 323 covers. I strongly support Alex Cole-Hamilton—I have not often been able to say that—and amendment 208 in his name. We can help to regain trust in our planning system by ensuring that development takes place on brownfield instead of land that was previously green belt, where that is achievable. Amendment 208 would help to achieve that aim. An application to build on green belt could not be approved unless there was a statement by the applicant setting out why the proposed development could not be achieved on brownfield land. I lodged an amendment on brownfield land that I did not move. If Alex Cole-Hamilton moves amendment 208, he will have the support of the Conservatives. Amendment 318, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on air quality zones, has the best of intentions, but despite its being reworded, there could still be unintended consequences. If amendment 318 is agreed to, almost any road or large industrial development, or large retail, restaurant or housing development, could be rejected on the ground that they might cause some pollution. As I mentioned previously, we want to protect the environment, but it is a question of balance.

Search Hansard contributions

Local Government and Communities Committee 31 October 2018

In the same item of business