³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 9 August 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1174 contributions

|

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

Would a fixed-penalty scheme to immediately impose a financial penalty on such an infringement help to drive behaviours better? If there was a beefier or more robust sanction on bad practice, it would probably drive behaviours. As you said, prosecutions are difficult to achieve, so you might end up in a situation where prosecution is hardly a viable sanction and you are trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

This has been a very interesting discussion, because it is establishing where the balance lies between providing positive incentives for people to undertake best practice in management and ensuring that there are sufficient penalties for malpractice. I will be interested to hear witnesses’ views on where that balance should lie.

The petitioners presented an example from Argyll of a private landowner who had cleared 21m3 of ancient woodland and was reported to Forestry Scotland. An enforcement exercise was pursued, but apparently that has quietly been dropped. The penalty is something like £5,000 per tree felled—I think that that is the level of penalty that is levied. I am concerned that enforcement was not pursued for quite an egregious breach of the 2018 act. Is there a problem with enforcement?

The point was raised about public money being used to clean up other people’s mess. Do we have a perverse situation in which the community is cleaning up for private interests that profit from the land but do not contribute anything to cleaning up their contamination or bad practice?

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

Do councils enforce tree preservation orders or are they a national thing? Can it be both?

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

Should that be carried out on a national basis rather than being left to individual councils, which might have radically different attitudes?

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

When the listed buildings system was first introduced, a national survey was done of all potential candidates and the list was compiled by experts at the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland. Does something similar have to happen for trees and woodlands? Is there also a role for public nominations of potential sites?

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

Is there no enforcement of that?

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

There is a similar issue with the bluebell wood example. The landowner is at liberty to do what he or she likes with the asset and does not need planning permission to make any changes. Is something more akin to planning consent needed for forestry and woodlands? Should they be designated similarly to how listed buildings are designated? Is that what you look to achieve?

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

That is really helpful. I just needed to get it clear in my head. Thank you for indulging me, convener.

The key point for me is the lack of enforcement. I was concerned that the petitioners mentioned that Scottish Forestry was initially gung-ho about enforcement in the case in Argyll and then seemed to have a gentleman’s agreement to let it lie, which is a bit problematic. There is also the question of how we enforce more robust measures, like we do with ancient monuments.

That helps to clear the matter up for me. I do not know about the rest of the committee.

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

Yes, convener. I briefly emphasise the point about what seems to be a grey area. The Cathkin Braes country park BMX trail, for example, was done as a result of planning permission for the Commonwealth games. I am astounded that such a development does not require planning consent. If a ski slope was developed in Glenshee, for example, planning consent would be required. There should be further investigation into where we draw the line. Why are councils not looking at that issue, perhaps not in relation to legislation but as a gap? There is also the issue of enforcement when people just do stuff without seeking planning permission.

10:45  

Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Continued Petitions

Meeting date: 9 March 2022

Paul Sweeney

I would like some clarification. During opening remarks, there was consensus about the importance of Scotland’s ancient woodland. For the record, I am directing the question to the witnesses from NatureScot, Scottish Forestry and Confor. Do your organisations agree that the current protection regime is insufficient? I would like to have the answer explicitly established and to hear each of you agree or disagree.