LAND USE STRATEGY STEERING GROUP MEETING MINUTES
18th Meeting, Douneside House, Tarland, Aberdeenshire.
3 September 2014
Attendees:
Andrew Barbour
Andrew Burke
(phoned in)
Andy Tharme
Angus Hardie
Bob McIntosh
(Chair)
Campbell Gerrard
Derek Robeson
Ian Jardine
(phoned in)
Irina Birnie
James Davidson
Jonathan Pryce
Kate Thomson McDermott
Lewis Hurley
Linda Gateley
Maike Waldmann
Quintin Donald
Rebecca Badger
Sally Thomas
Simon Pepper
Stephen Pathirana
Zoe Kemp
(phoned in)
Independent
Scottish Government (SG) Historic Environment
Scottish Borders Council
Independent
SG Environment & Forestry
SG Planning
Tweed Forum
SNH
Aberdeenshire Council
Aberdeenshire Council
SG Agriculture, Food & Rural Communities
SG Agriculture, Food & Rural Communities
SG Planning
SG Natural Resources
SG Natural Resources
SG Rural Payments & Inspections
SEPA
SG Natural Resources
Independent
SG Agriculture, Food, Drink & Rural Communities
SG Natural Resources
1. Apologies
David Barnes
Joanna Drewitt
John Crawford
Linda Pooley
Paula Charleson
Richard Walsh
Sue Kearns
Susan Davies
Tim Simons
SG Agriculture
SG RESAS
Scottish Enterprise
SG Climate Change
SEPA
SG Tourism and Major Events
SG Energy
SG RESAS
SG Education
2. Minutes of the meeting of 6 February 2014
Minutes accepted.
3. Matters arising
AP 62 will be taken forward to a future meeting.
AP 63 will be taken forward to a future meeting.
AP 64 will be taken forward to a future meeting.
AP 66 is to be discussed with Land Use & Biodiversity Team (LU&B) and will be
presented at the next meeting.
AP 67 was completed.
AP 68 – An update is included under agenda item 5.
1
AP 69 was completed.
AP 70 was completed.
AP 71 – A paper was presented under agenda item 6.
AP 72 – An update is included under agenda item 5.
4. Update paper including update on Regional Land Use Pilots – Scottish
Borders LUSSG 14/04
A general update of issues and activities which have arisen since the last Steering
Group meeting.
An update was given on the progress of the Regional Land Use Framework pilot
project in the Scottish Borders. It was highlighted that stakeholder engagement in the
Scottish Borders worked best with mixed groups of stakeholders on sub-catchment
level, although it was more difficult to engage with the general public and businesses
than with stakeholders who have a direct impact on land use such as farmers. The
interaction of the regional framework with flood management planning and
development planning was discussed. It was noted that the Borders LDP was too far
advanced for the pilot to have a meaningful input. It was noted that potential
competing opportunities coming out of the regional frameworks would have to be
weighed against each other with involvement of and feedback from stakeholders.
The role of the framework will be identify where there are opportunities and
constraints, not to prescribe; however, there was consensus that links to incentives
such as SRDP would be useful.
There was discussion around the findings of the Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery
Evaluation project, which identified potential barriers to translating the LUS Principles
into action on the ground. Each category of barriers will be looked at and addressed
in the LUS review. There was concern to be upfront about any barriers.
AP 73: LU&B Team to consider and address each category of barriers identified in
the Delivery Evaluation report in the LUS review.
5. LUS2 development – timescale, activities, parliamentary process LUSSG
14/05
The project initiation document and communication plan for the development of
LUS2 were outlined. No new governance structures will be set up to take forward
LUS2. Three stakeholder discussions will be held in autumn, along with one-to-one
meetings, and the main annual stakeholder event in summer 2015 during the public
consultation period. The Land Use Strategy Steering Group (LUSSG) had concerns
that only the usual stakeholders will be reached, and there was the suggestion that
more effort was needed throughout the process to reach out to a wider range of
stakeholders at events such as the Rural Parliament.
There was a suggestion to produce an easy-read version of the discussion
documents or the draft LUS to engage a wider range of stakeholders which will be
considered, similar to the Short Guide produced for LUS 1. It was suggested to use
social media to engage with stakeholders. It was emphasised to invite stakeholders
to the autumn events quickly.
2
AP 74: LU&B Team to consider how best to engage with a wider range of
stakeholders (easy-read version of stakeholder briefing, social media, etc.) and
include this in the communication plan.
There was discussion around the need to better reflect the contribution of SNH and
SEPA to the Land Use Strategy as the project plan. This was agreed. . SNH and
SEPA will also be consulted as part of the autumn stakeholder discussions, and the
project initiation document will be shared with them. It was also agreed that the
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Groups could feed in during the early stages of the
review of the Land Use Strategy.
6. LUS2 development – approach LUSSG 14/06
Details for the approach of the LUS2 development were provided. LUS2 is intended
to focus on delivery and thus there would be a change of emphasis towards the
shifts in approach and away from the LUS Objectives. These shifts in approach are
cross-cutting and integrated rather than being separate streams of activity. It was
discussed whether work towards including spatial priorities in LUS2 should be
undertaken. The on-going work on how existing regional delivery mechanisms using
an ecosystems approach might be taken forward was discussed. The Land Use and
Biodiversity Communications Group was asked to consider “developing
understanding, changing attitudes, and shifting behaviours to foster stewardship”
and to report to the LUSSG on their conclusions in December 2014. A more flexible
reporting system for the next LUS was discussed, continuously monitoring progress
rather than annually, similar to the NPF3 Action Programme.
There were concerns that the meaning of the phrase “partnerships with nature” was
unclear. This would be explained in more detail with more context in the stakeholder
discussion briefing for the autumn stakeholder events. The starting points of the
“shifts in approach” should also be explained.
There was discussion around compatibility between government policies and the
need for better integration. It should be made transparent where there are any
conflicts and how they will be addressed. These would be considered in the
development of LUS2.
There was a question of whether Scotland’s Food and Drink policy is mentioned in
the current LUS and it is, as well as in the Action Plan.
An update was provided on the thinking about how maps could feature in LUS2.
There was discussion around the interaction between the maps, which will form part
of the LUS, and SEWeb. There was discussion about the scale of the maps, with a
larger scale being more useful for planning but also concerns about providing too
much detail. It was noted that the maps should serve as a baseline. It was suggested
to include more social and socio-economic data into maps, such as deprivation and
population data, and similarly to the Common Weal Atlas of Productivity. This type of
data should also be included in the Land Use Data Hub.
AP 75: The Land Use and Biodiversity Communications Group to consider
“developing understanding, changing attitudes, and shifting behaviours to foster
stewardship” and to report to the LUSSG on their conclusions in December 2014.
3
AP 76: Consider whether it is possible to include socio-economic datasets in the
Land Use Data Hub.
AP 77: LU&B team to do further work on baseline mapping.
7. Land Reform Update LUSSG 14/07
An outline of the Land Reform Review Group Report was given. There was
discussion around land policy, better evidence, mapping and information and
transparency on land ownership and use in Scotland. The Land Reform Review
Group’s report had suggested concerns that the LUS might limit land owners’
choices. The recommendations from the Land Reform Review Group report will be
taken into consideration for the LUS review. The link between Principle G of the LUS
on derelict land and Land Reform was pointed out. There were concerns that the
definition of derelict land differed in urban and rural environments and needed to be
clarified when using these terms.
There was a discussion about land ownership patterns and what impact any
changes might have on land use. It was noted that any change of land ownership, if
it were to happen, would happen gradually. There was consensus that there was a
need for evidence on the relationship between land ownership and land use, and the
SG Land Reform and Tenancy Unit are currently discussing their research needs
with Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS).
There were discussions about the recommendation on Land Policy and an invitation
for input from LUSSG members.
AP 78: Land Reform and Tenancy Unit to report on progress of Land Policy at the
next meeting.
8. AOB
None.
9. Date of next Meeting – 10 Dec 2014
10. Regional Land Use Pilots – Aberdeenshire update LUSSG 14/08
An update on the Aberdeenshire Land Use pilot was given, including a recap on the
earlier stages of the project and an update of stage 3. It was felt that the pilot’s
activities, particularly the relationship with stakeholders, should be taken forward in
some way.
4
Summary of Action Points
Action
Action required
Point
Number
Action points from earlier meetings
62
Arrange SEWeb presentation at a future meeting
63
Presentations on CAP to be arranged once the
consultation is underway and on land reform issues as
appropriate as the work of the review progresses
64
Forestry Commission Scotland to provide an update on
their related work
66
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Communication Group to
explore issues of communication and engagement with
a range of sectors, including land managers.
Action points from 3 September meeting
73
Consider and address each category of barriers
identified in the Delivery Evaluation report in the LUS
review.
74
Consider how best to engage with a wider range of
stakeholders (easy-read version of stakeholder
briefing, social media, etc.) and include this in the
communication plan.
75
Consider
“developing
understanding,
changing
attitudes, and shifting behaviours to foster
stewardship”.
76
77
78
Required by
SEPA
David Barnes
FCS
Simon Pepper
LU&B Team
LU&B Team
Land Use and
Biodiversity
Communicatio
ns Group
Consider whether it is possible to include socio- LU&B Team
economic datasets in the Land Use Data Hub.
Do further work on baseline mapping.
LU&B Team
Land Reform and Tenancy Unit to report on progress
Stephen
of Land Policy at the next meeting.
Pathirana,
Kate
ThomsonMcDermott
Land Use & Biodiversity Team
October 2014
5