NEWS RELEASE – Yet more green space under threat
Posted on November 30, 2006GREEN MSP OUTRAGED AT GLASGOW COUNCIL SELL OFF
Green MSP for Glasgow, Patrick Harvie has today expressed outrage at the prospect of Glasgow City Council selling off more of the public’s green spaces.
Glasgow City Council is in talks with St Aloysius College, one of the city’s private schools, over the sale of publicly owned Dawsholm Park.
Situated between Kelvindale and Bearsden, Dawsholm Park has reportedly been badly maintained in recent years.
Patrick Harvie, Green MSP for Glasgow and spokesperson on Communities said:
“This is yet more evidence that Glasgow City Council has no intention of preserving the city’s open and green spaces. It often appears that the City Council deliberately allows public spaces to deteriorate in order to undermine local opposition when they decide to get rid of them.
“Selling public land to a private school will again restrict the local community’s access to recreational areas and further deprive Glasgow of its green spaces.”
ENDS
NEWS RELEASE – Airport rail link passes, but aviation growth must be halted
Posted on November 29, 2006GLASGOW AIRPORT RAIL LINK: LABOUR AND LIBDEM AVIATION OBSESSION WILL FUEL CLIMATE CHANGE
Commenting on the parliamentary debate on the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL) Bill, Glasgow Green MSP Patrick Harvie said,
“Though we support this bill, it remains clear that Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Executive have their priorities utterly wrong on transport. Faced with the urgent threat of climate change, and serving a city in which most families don’t have access to a car, they have consistently failed to show the same enthusiasm for public transport that they show for projects like the M74 motorway extension.
“We should be pushing forward with the Glasgow Crossrail scheme, which would have benefits throughout the west of Scotland public transport network. Once that was in place, a link to the airport would make sense.
“Though reducing road traffic is of course a good thing, for Labour and the Liberal Democrats, this is not about protecting the environment, or achieving social justice, it’s about getting more people through our airports. They want to see a trebling of aviation – even in the face of rising fears over climate change – and they see this link as a way of increasing airport capacity.”
Greens have today also criticised plans for the expansion of Edinburgh airport arguing that the ongoing growth in the aviation industry is unsustainable and that the harm caused to the environment will also inevitably harm the Scottish economy.
ENDS
NEWS RELEASE – Labour and LibDems reject fairness in planning
Posted on November 16, 2006LABOUR AND LIBDEMS REJECT FINAL-DITCH PLEA FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING RIGHTS
Labour and Libdem MSPs today abandoned any commitment to environmental justice by voting against Greens’ last-ditch attempt to grant communities a right of appeal in the planning system. (1)
The proposal – to introduce a third party right of appeal when local development plans are out of date – would have also benefited developers because it would have encouraged local authorities to keep plans up-to-date.
Following the crucial vote in the stage 3 parliamentary debate on the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, Greens’ speaker on communities Patrick Harvie MSP said, “This was an attempt to give the public some meaningful rights in the planning system, but Labour and LibDems rejected it outright and in doing so denied communities even a minimal degree of justice.
?So many variations of TPRA have been knocked back by Labour and the LibDems that we can only conclude that their consultation on the issue was a sham all along. Most of the LibDems seem determined to vote against their own party policy – TPRA was in their manifesto – and Labour’s proposal for community notification is worth next to nothing.?
Currently, developers have the right to appeal planning decisions, but objectors – such as local residents or NGOs – do not have a similar right. Greens argue that this makes the system inherently unfair and biased, and compromises public capacity for involvement in local planning.
During Stage 2, several variations on the TPRA concept were proposed, and rejected by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative MSPs. Stage 3 offered a last-ditch attempt to introduce a new variant on the idea. During the debate Patrick Harvie MSP argued that if development plans are left to go out of date, third party appeal rights should then apply.
On the widespread public support for introducing a TPRA, Harvie said, ?The many people who took the time to respond to the Executive’s consultation exercises will feel betrayed – 86% respondents favoured the introduction of TPRA but they are now being faced with the prospect that major developments will be rubber-stamped by those in power, and that parts of the planning system will simply be closed off to the public.?
ENDS
For further information call 0131 348 6360/0771 761 8771.
Notes
1. Text of amendment:
Rights of Appeal
To grant third party right of appeal when the development plan is out of date.
In Section 18, page 46, line 14, insert at end
( ) after subsection (2) insert?
?(2B) Where?
(a) a planning authority grant planning permission in respect of an application (other than an application relating to a national development), and
(b) the most recent development plan for the area in which the application is located is more than five years old
any person who made representations relating to the application to the planning authority under section 38(1) may appeal to the Scottish Ministers against the decision.
NEWS RELEASE – Planning Bill still fundamentally flawed
Posted on November 15, 2006PLANNING BILL DENIES SCRUTINY AND PUBLIC RIGHTS IN THE PLANNING SYSTEM – LABOUR AND LIBDEM MSPS SHOULD ‘HANG THEIR HEADS IN SHAME’ – HARVIE
Green MSPs said they were unable to support the Planning Bill in parliament because Labour and Libdem MSPs refused to allow an acceptable level of scrutiny of a new National Planning Framework for Scotland. Rather than open up the planning system to make it fairer and more transparent, Greens say the bill does exactly the opposite.
Patrick Harvie MSP, who has led Green campaigning on the planning system said: “The refusal by Labour and the Liberal Democrats to accept the need for more thorough scrutiny – in public as well as parliament – makes it impossible for Greens to support the planning Bill. The National Planning Framework in particular must be held under the microscope before Ministers are allowed to sign it off.
“Alongside the injustice which will remain if Ministers again refuse to allow Third Party Rights of Appeal, and the failure of Ministers to keep an open mind to the many proposals for improvements to this bill, what we see at this final stage fully justifies our description of this legislation as a ‘power grab’ by Ministers with an instinct to centralise against the wishes of local communities.”
The bill was a key test for First Minister Jack McConnell who pledged in February 2002 to deliver environmental justice to everyone in Scotland.
Tomorrow the Bill will continue to be debated and will include Third Party Rights of Appeal, and Robin Harper MSP will also move amendments to protect heritage trees.
At the outset, Greens argued that the planning system reforms needed to include:
- sustainable development made explicitly the purpose of planning
- full community involvement in the development plan process
- meaningful public involvement in planning decisions, including the introduction of Third Party Right of Appeal
- strengthened planning regulations on house building to prioritise environmental and community impacts
- the protection of greenbelt land and urban green spaces
When the bill was introduced, it was clear that lack of scrutiny of the National Planning Framework, represented a ?power grab? away from public and Parliament. Greens, in particular Patrick Harvie MSP, member of the Communities Committee, have lobbied to improve scrutiny and also to secure mechanisms for the public to have input into the document.
On the primacy of business interests, Patrick Harvie MSP, Green speaker on communities, said, ?This bill will serve needs of business first and foremost with no meaningful ways to ensure public opinion is taken into account in planning decisions. In this way, the planning system will remain unbalanced, unfair, and inefficient.?
On the widespread public support for introducing a TPRA, Harvie said, ?The many people who took the time to respond to the Executive’s consultation exercises will feel betrayed – 86% respondents favoured the introduction of TPRA but they are now being faced with the prospect that major developments will be rubber-stamped by those in power, and that parts of the planning system will simply be closed off to the public.?
Responding to the repeated rejection of TPRA by Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs, Harvie said, ?So many variations of TPRA have been knocked back by Labour and the LibDems that we can only conclude that their consultation on the issue was a sham all along. Most of the LibDems seem determined to vote against their own party policy, and the sop from the Labour backbenches, the proposal for community notification, will change nothing.?
On the need for closer scrutiny of the NPF, Harvie said, ?Nuclear power stations, radioactive waste dumps and motorways are all going to be decided on ultimately by one person ? the Minister ? with little chance of the public or Parliament having a proper say. This is not democracy in action, far from it.?
On the significance of the Planning Bill on McConnell?s environmental justice pledge, Harvie said, ?There was perhaps no bigger and better opportunity for delivering environmental justice than this bill. McConnell has missed that opportunity, let down communities across the country, and set the scene for potentially disastrous development for decades to come.?
NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK ? COMMUNITIES DISENFRANCHISED
Greens have lobbied throughout the legislative process for more robust parliamentary and public scrutiny of the National Planning Framework.
The NPF will include key infrastructural developments, possibly including nuclear power stations, and must be subject to close scrutiny. That Labour and LibDems have resisted the moves to improve scrutiny suggests they want to at least have the option of building new nuclear power stations with political or public debate kept to a minimum. As things stand, the NPF will get 60 days’ parliamentary scrutiny (enough for a very short committee inquiry and one Chamber debate), with no public inquiry or examination. The Minister – not Parliament – will have the power to give final approval. After that any specific development included in the document will be more or less a done deal.
Furthermore, Labour and LibDems have proposed limiting the scope of public inquiries into developments of “national strategic importance” so that alternatives to, or the need for, a proposed development cannot be examined.
Similarly, the public?s right to object to other major developments such as landfill sites and opencast coalmining could be severely restricted.
Ministers can dictate even local plans on issues such as waste management, hospitals or schools. This ‘power grab’ away from local communities and councils will clear the way for Ministers to force through plans for environmentally damaging developments. It appears that not only will individuals, campaigners and community groups remain locked out of major decisions, but even their locally elected representatives will have a reduced role.
THIRD PARTY RIGHT OF APPEAL (TPRA)
Opponents of TPRA often assume that it could lead to every development being opposed ? this is wrong. The case for TPRA is being put forward on a limited basis so that it would only come into play in specific circumstances.
Currently, developers have the right to appeal planning decisions, but objectors – such as local residents or NGOs – do not have a similar right. Greens argue that this makes the system inherently unfair and biased, and compromises public capacity for involvement in local planning.
In 2004, BBC Scotland reported that there was no significant ministerial support for introducing Third Party Right of Appeal ? even before the consultation on TPRA had drawn to a close ? proving that the Executive decides policy with little regard for respondents? views.
TPRA is a longstanding manifesto commitment of the Greens. Main reasons for this are:
? The need to oppose environmentally unsound developments.
? The injustice of having a developer right of appeal, but no similar right for objectors.
? The need to stimulate more engagement between developers and communities before developments are promoted.
We believe that the introduction of TPRA would:
? Create a fairer and more effective planning system for all.
? Create a more inclusive and accountable planning system, which would protect communities and help deliver environmental justice.
? Create a more reliable and predictable plan-led system, which could also improve the quality of planning applications (including better pre-application consultations).
? Create a better perception of the planning system and thus increase people?s trust that they have a system which will deliver quality outcomes for all parties concerned.
The Green MSPs recognise that, in providing for a fair and effective, workable planning system, the right of appeal should be limited to the following categories:
? Cases where the local authority has an interest. The extension of the M74 in Glasgow is one example of this. This category is crucial to ensure the planning system is more open and transparent.
? Cases where the application is contrary to the local plan. Deviating from development plans serves to alienate the public and devalue the forward planning process. Many authorities are also operating with out-of-date plans. TPRA would provide an additional incentive to bring development plans up-to-date.
? Cases when planning officers have recommended rejection. Planning officers? are professionals who are required to give impartial advice on planning matters. It is only fair that communities should have the right to ask for further scrutiny of the application by calling for an appeal.
? Cases where an Environmental Impact Assessment is needed. It is vital for the planning system to encourage sustainable development.
Third parties able to appeal should include those who objected to the original planning application – but it could be extended to those who responded to the original planning application. Original objectors or respondents would include statutory consultees, local residents, community councils, interest groups and NGOs as well as other developers and small businesses.
During Stage 2, several variations on the TPRA concept were proposed, and rejected by Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative MSPs. Stage 3 offers a last-ditch attempt to introduce a new variant on the idea. During the debate Patrick Harvie MSP will argue that if development plans are left to go out of date, third party appeal rights should then apply.
STAGE 3 AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY PATRICK HARVIE
National Planning Framework – consultation report
To require the Executive to publish a summary of responses to the consultation on the NPF and explain what changes have been made to it as a result.
In Section 1, page 2, line 40, after
National Planning Framework ? Sustainable Development Duty
To extend the Executive?s sustainable development duty to cover the implementation of the NPF as well as its preparation and revision.
In Section 1, page 3, line 9, after
Rights of Appeal
To grant third party right of appeal when the development plan is out of date.
In Section 18, page 46, line 14, insert at end
( ) after subsection (2) insert?
?(2B) Where?
(a) a planning authority grant planning permission in respect of an application (other than an application relating to a national development), and
(b) the most recent development plan for the area in which the application is located is more than five years old
any person who made representations relating to the application to the planning authority under section 38(1) may appeal to the Scottish Ministers against the decision.
Fixed penalty notices ? additional penalty for repeat offenders
To require the Scottish Ministers to prescribe higher fixed penalty amounts for repeat offenders.
In Section 23A, page 60, line 13, after
?and shall prescribe higher amounts for cases where a person has previously received fixed penalty notices in similar circumstances?
In Section 23A, page 61, line 11, after
?and shall prescribe higher amounts for cases where a person has previously received fixed penalty notices in similar circumstances?
Fixed penalty notices –
To ensure that in determining applications, planning authorities bear in mind developers? track record of breaching enforcement notices and receiving fixed penalty notices.
In Section 10, page 82, line 12, after
?( ) in subsection (2) after the words ?material to the application? insert ?to any fixed penalty notices received by the applicant in respect of previous applications?
Sustainable development as a consideration
To ensure that planning authorities have regard to sustainable development in determining individual applications.
In Section 10, page 82, line 12, after
“( ) in subsection (2) after the words “material considerations” insert “with particular regard to the objective of contributing to sustainable development”
NEWS RELEASE – Community Health projects face closure
Posted on November 8, 2006GLASGOW PROJECTS TACKLING HEALTH INEQUALITIES FACE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN – Greens call for strategy to secure key services
The battle to tackle Glasgow’s major health problems is being hindered by a funding crisis in community projects that deliver unique services, Green MSPs will argue in a parliamentary debate today (1, 2). Greens will press Health Minister Andy Kerr for a national strategy on community health projects to ensure that they are allocated adequate and secure funding.
The warning follows the chief medical officer Dr Andrew Burns’ annual report, released on Monday, which confirmed that alcohol and obesity remain the top public health concerns and that, “people living in deprived areas have a significantly shorter life expectancy than those in more affluent areas?. As well as tackling immediate health needs, community health projects address underlying causes of health inequalities that conventional health services are not equipped to challenge.
Glasgow Green MSP Patrick Harvie has been contacted by staff concerned that projects were either going to fold, or that they were not operating in the way that they should due to insecure funding. Various projects in Glasgow are cash-strapped but are too scared to speak out for fear of jeopardising future funding. NHS Greater Glasgow Health Board allocates funds on an annual basis only, leading to short-termism and job insecurity – despite the city’s poor health record and low life expectancy.
Patrick Harvie, Green Glasgow MSP, said, “Funding duties are being passed form pillar to post leaving no-one in charge and no-one willing to take responsibility. Several Glasgow cash-strapped projects are under threat or have gone under already and obesity and alcohol are still major health problems in Glasgow – ministers need to do more to make sure that they are being tackled.
“Community health projects are efficient and effective. They tailor services and can really reach those in need, yet they are being left to function on shoe-string budgets, lurching from one financial crisis to another. It’s time the Executive coughed up the cash so that both taxpayers and those who use the projects really benefit.
“A national strategy on community health would give the sector the standing it deserves – until there is a clear requirement for local authorities and health boards to support and protect the sector, they will always be bottom of the list when funds are being allocated.”
Glasgow projects that have already closed after their funding was slashed include the Maryhill Community Health Project, which focussed on helping new mums, and North Glasgow Community Health Project, which provided services such as an oral health project.
Four other Glasgow projects have had funding cuts so severe that they are going to be forced to merge. These are:
1. East End Health Action: funding cut, no longer viable as a stand alone project.
2. Greater Easterhouse Community Health Project: will merge with EEHA but can no longer afford to employ development workers.
3. Healthy Castlemilk: funding cut, so not viable as a stand alone project.
4. SEAL: Plan is to merge it with Healthy Castlemilk but at the moment no capacity between them to form a proposal.
ENDS
For further information call 0771 761 8771/0131 348 6360.
1. Member’s business debate in the Parliament at 5pm on Wednesday 8 November.
Community Health
S2M-05045 Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green):
That the Parliament recognises the great importance of community health projects in tackling the health problems that our nation faces; believes that community, independent and voluntary sector organisations addressing health inequalities play a crucial role in meeting the Scottish Executive?s targets on health improvement; in particular, congratulates the Edinburgh Community Food Initiative on 10 years of working to remove barriers to a healthy diet by consistently developing innovative and effective programmes such as the Snack Attack project; notes that the future of this project, like many others, depends on its ability to continue to identify, secure and manage a wide variety of short-term funding sources; notes with concern the sense of fragility across the sector due to the uncertainty inherent in the funding system, and considers that the Executive should show much greater support to community health projects and act to reduce the financial insecurity that they are forced to face.
2. General background info:
Community health projects are defined by the national network for CH as:
“community, independent and voluntary sector organisations addressing health inequalities”
They generally operate in deprived areas, note the importance of community involvement.
? most projects are funded by a mixture of NHS, Executive and local authority money, meaning they spend lots of time managing funding streams and new initiatives, dealing with bureaucracy
? The NHS is restructuring to create Community Health Partnerships (not the same as Community Health projects) which are basically a new level of management designed to co-ordinate care in a geographical area and link up social services, primary care etc. It means that the way funding is coming to some community health projects is changing, and there is concern that it is having a negative impact.
? Because they are community/voluntary sector run, most projects only get 1-3 year funding at a time which puts workers under a high degree of stress as well as being inefficient in terms of start-up costs, short-termist planning etc.
Recent updates
Latest tweets