The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3723 contributions
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
I come back to the fact that there is no minimum threshold for prohibiting land transfers or requiring notification to be provided of an intention to sell. The whole landholding needs to be above the wider threshold, but there is no minimum size for a transfer that falls within the prohibition and notification requirements. Do you support that? Do you think that there could be any unintended consequences?
We took some evidence from Atholl Estates, which talked about the very small transfers of land alongside footpaths or the backs of gardens that it might be involved in. It said that, as a larger estate, if it came under some of the proposed requirements as a result of there being no minimum threshold for the transfer of such very small assets, that would be problematic for the community as well as for it. Do you support the fact that there is no minimum threshold?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
Do you mean that people are less likely to be open about their true feelings regarding land management?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
That is a good example of significance—that is, if there were housing need in a community, and 1 hectare of land was available to be turned from temporary accommodation to permanent housing.
One issue that was raised with us was whether moving a fence by a couple of metres, say, would be captured by the bill. Might that be deemed to be not significant to the community? Could such cases, under the definition, be left out of the provisions?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
Josh Doble, do you want to come in?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
I am aware of a discussion at the moment in Aberfeldy about woodland crofts. Would that be part of the forestry plan with Forestry and Land Scotland, or does it belong in the local place plan, the land management plan or all three? There is a question in my head about how to make sense of that.
Josh Doble, do you want to come in?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
Thank you.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
Linda Gillespie said at the start of the meeting that the bill focuses less on urban areas, which takes us to the issue of local place plans. I can imagine having a local land management plan for the estates surrounding a village and a local place plan for the village. That plan might or might not incorporate land that is owned by a local estate and it might be relevant for housing. Some of those issues were highlighted in the committee’s trip to highland Perthshire. It feels as if that could start to get a bit messy and that we need some clarity about where democratic influence lies. Do you have any thoughts about how to bring those things together?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
We have covered thresholds in some depth, convener, so I was going to move on from that.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
Can I just wrap up on the criteria?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee
Meeting date: 5 November 2024
Mark Ruskell
On land management plans, I am interested in getting your views on what good consultation actually looks like. As Jon Hollingdale has pointed out, we already have forest strategies; there is also a forest licensing process that communities input to and there are local place plans.
09:45Is there good practice when it comes to meaningful consultation in which communities feel that they are actually participating in decisions, instead of just being asked, “What do you think of this?”
Is there a risk that the bill will set up a tick-box exercise? How can we make the process appropriate, meaningful and participative, so that communities actually feel that their objectives are being met?