Committee
Communities Committee, 13 Sep 2006
13 Sep 2006 · S2 · Communities Committee
Item of business
Planning etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
I am the latest in a parade of visitors to the committee, which reflects the bill's importance. I thank the committee for its patience and endurance in dealing with a complex issue.My amendments are about the role of local authorities, or lack of it, in regulating demolition. I refer the committee to its recent debate on the need for more affordable housing. In many areas—particularly the Lothians and my area of West Lothian—providing land for that involves brownfield site reclamation. Concerns have been brought to my attention through a constituency case that involved the Motherwell Bridge site in Uphall, which showed up a problem in the process and not just in practices.In an answer to me in November 2004, the minister said that the Executive had"published planning advice to local authorities on the development of contaminated land."—Official Report, Written Answers, 4 November 2004; S2O-3823.She also said that when planning applications are approved, conditions can be imposed. The problem is that planning applications are not needed for most demolitions. Circular 2/1995 from the Scottish Office, which refers to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, says:"The new planning controls over demolition are intended to provide the minimum necessary level of control by exempting most demolitions from planning controls".Correspondence from Graham Marchbank—Alan Cameron, who is present, was copied into it—raised concern, because it said that most recent definitions of demolition are in circular 1/2001, which explains that planning permission is necessary only for demolition that amounts to an engineering operation. A demolition does not necessarily involve engineering operations.Graham Marchbank also said that the courts decide on and interpret legislation and that "Scottish Planning Law and Procedure""explains that most demolition is not development. It also explains that case law on what constitutes an engineering operation"says that it"amounts to operations requiring an engineer but not that an engineer need be present".Even when planning permission is needed for demolition, there is a very narrow definition of what engineering work is implied in that. If we do not need planning permission for demolition, there is a gap in the process.The issues are complex but I will try to keep my points simple and fairly brief. In the case to which I referred, there was crash demolition of large pieces of asbestos sheeting and the demolition was contrary to the directives on how asbestos should be disposed of. Right at the beginning of a process, when a building warrant is granted and a method statement drawn up, the local authority has a role. However, that is the end of their role until an application to build houses comes in, which can be much later. During a demolition, the Health and Safety Executive has a responsibility for the workers. It also has a responsibility for people not employed in the demolition but who may be affected by it. That duty is in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, but it is very general.The HSE has only just opened offices in Scotland. It tends to take a carrot rather than a stick approach, and it certainly does not have enough officers to police the current amount of demolition activity.In the case to which I referred, we were concerned about practices during demolition. Later, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency identified those practices as being problematic, as did the Scottish Executive. SEPA becomes involved in the disposal of materials only once the demolition has taken place and things are on the ground.In this case, in March 2003 SEPA said that the asbestos cement would lead them to classify the material as "special waste", preventing its recycling as aggregate for future use on the site. The material was so bad that SEPA did not want it to be recycled.Many brownfield sites are right in the middle of other housing developments. I am not against the development of brownfield sites—it is necessary—but I want it to be done safely, taking the public in the area into consideration.My amendment 163 would mean that people who wanted to sell their land for the development of housing would have to apply for planning permission as part of the demolition and would have to take special waste into account. The amendment would mean that local authorities, who currently have no role in relation to demolition, would have one. Local authorities know much better than the HSE what is happening in their area should any problems arise.Amendment 182 is technical; it helps to explain what special waste is in relation to the hazardous waste directive. Amendment 172 is consequential on that.I do not believe in overregulation or in placing too many burdens on authorities, but public health must be our prime concern. This issue takes in planning, public health and environmental concerns. There is a gap in the provision. I think that local authorities used to take responsibility for the demolition of industrial sites, but not any more. My amendments would be a helpful and constructive move to remedy that.I move amendment 163.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Karen Whitefield):
Lab
I open the 23rd meeting of the Communities Committee in 2006 and remind everyone present that mobile phones should be turned off. The only item on today's ag...
Before section 3
The Convener:
Lab
Amendment 175, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendment 124.
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
Amendment 175 would extend the sustainable development duty that is already present in the earlier sections of the bill in relation to the national planning ...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
Amendment 124 covers two points: first, existing buildings for which better insulation or a microrenewable energy scheme is sought; and secondly, energy effi...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I have a question for Donald Gorrie, which the minister will perhaps also pick up on. I am sympathetic towards amendment 124, but I would like to know what D...
The Convener:
Lab
Dave Petrie, do you wish to contribute?
Dave Petrie (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
No—I was just chewing my pen.
The Convener:
Lab
I am sorry—I thought that you were indicating an interest in the debate. I invite Mr Gorrie to respond to the specific points that Christine Grahame raised.
Donald Gorrie:
LD
This is one of those times when I have to cop out. I do not think that the law can contain something precise enough to cover every area. It would be up to th...
The Deputy Minister for Communities (Johann Lamont):
Lab
Patrick Harvie's amendment 175 seeks to introduce a further sustainable development duty into the bill, covering the whole of part 3. The existing sustainabl...
Patrick Harvie:
Green
Two points were raised on amendment 175. The first was that there is perhaps a lack of clarity over what a contribution to sustainable development really mea...
The Convener:
Lab
The question is, that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members:
No.
The Convener:
Lab
There will be a division.
ForHarvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)AgainstBarrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)Grahame, Christine (South of ...
The Convener:
Lab
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 175 disagreed to.
Section 3—Meaning of "development"
The Convener:
Lab
Amendment 176, in the name of John Farquhar Munro, is grouped with amendment 177.
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
Thank you, convener, and good morning.I lodged amendment 176 in the hope that it would give more control to every local authority. All developments, both lar...
Dave Petrie:
Con
Have you discussed the amendment with the Crown Estate commissioners and, if so, what was the reaction?
John Farquhar Munro:
LD
Not directly, but I know that local authorities have been campaigning for many years to have control of the seabed adjacent to the coastline. For instance, H...
Dave Petrie:
Con
But would it not be another burden on local authorities?
The Convener:
Lab
Excuse me, this is not a debate. If we have time, I will allow Dave Petrie to contribute again.
Dave Petrie:
Con
Thank you.
John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab):
Lab
I have sympathy with what John Farquhar Munro is proposing. He is right that development on the seabed adjacent to the coast is subject to control not by loc...
The Convener:
Lab
Mr Petrie, I am going to allow you to make your other point, and Mr Farquhar Munro can respond to it when he winds up the debate.
Dave Petrie:
Con
Thank you, convener.I just wanted to make a point about how local authorities are already stretched and could be further stretched by the bill. If the amendm...
John Farquhar Munro:
LD
No, I think that—