 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 10476, in the name of Graham Simpson, on to save the green belt. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Those members who wish to speak in the debate, please press the request to speak buttons. Now would I call on Graham Simpson to open the debate. Mr Simpson, please. Thank you very much. I thank the members who signed my motion and so allowed it to be debated. I thank all those who will take part today. I'd also like to extend a warm welcome to the representatives of the campaign, Save Woodhall and Faskin, and others who've made the trip through to be in the public gallery today. It's customary for members to disclose if they have an interest in the subject of the debate. Well, here is mine. I love the green belt. This debate comes about because of a proposal to seek planning permission to build on green belt land between Calderbank and Canbro in North Lanarkshire. I accept the minister won't be able to talk about that. The area includes land owned by the daughters of the late Willie Whitelaw, passed to them by their father before he died. There is a beautiful woodland with many species of trees, the ruins of the former estate house and what's left of the Monkland's canal. The area is rich in history and heritage. It could and should be enhanced. Orchard, Brae, the developers, say their plans not submitted yet would allow for that. They would also see 2,600 houses built in green belt and effectively join Calderbank to Canbro and then Airdrie. They also say they would leave woodlands on the woodhall and Fasgin estates intact. That's because, with the help of the woodland trust, I managed to secure a tree preservation order through North Lanarkshire Council covering the entire area. Let's be honest here where fortunes can be made by the simple granting of planning permission, trees are not high in people's thought processes, so that TPO was vital. Green belts are more than just a boundary between rural and urban areas. Open spaces provide habitats for wildlife and are ideal places for walking and other recreational pursuits. They provide a natural ecosystem such as water treatment and air quality. They are also important in preventing floods. Now, as the party spokesman for housing and communities, I'm fully aware of the pressure on existing housing stock and the need to build more affordable homes to meet demands, but they need to be in the right places and this isn't one of them. There are numerous health benefits brought about by walk in the countryside. Don't just take my word for it. Local GP David Walker, an appropriate surname, who serves the area around Calderbank and Calmbro, spoke passionately about the health benefits, physical and mental, of the green belt at a recent public meeting. He told me last week that, in the midst of an obesity epidemic, Scottish Government figures state that, in 2016, 65 per cent of adults over 16 were overweight and 29 per cent were obese. Those figures are increased from the previous 10 years. The benefits of exercise are many, particularly in green space. Fine words. He went on to say that exercise is the first line of treatment for many conditions, in particular obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiac rehab and mental health issues. The latter particularly benefits from exposure to green space. Dr Walker concluded, that, once green space is gone from a community, it's extremely difficult to recreate. We must do all we can to protect the health of future generations. He's not alone voice in this. The Lancet recently published a paper that claims exposure to green space can help lower mortality rates. A joint study by Glasgow and St Andrews University illustrated the pricers value of the green belt when it stated that environments that promote good health might be crucial in the fight to reduce health inequalities. That means that, in general, people living in poorer areas are more likely to be unhealthy and die earlier. However, the research found that living near parks, woodland or other open spaces help to reduce inequalities, regardless of social class. All that is backed by the World Health Organization in their report on urban green spaces, which concluded, that the evidence shows that urban green space has health benefits, particularly for economically deprived communities, children, pregnant women and senior citizens. It's therefore essential that all populations have adequate access to green space. Last week, in the chamber, I asked Fiona Hyslop if she agreed that having a country park and canal heritage trail at Calder Blank was worth investigating. She agreed that heritage trails can bring a social and economic uplift to the areas that they serve and has to be kept informed of any developments, so I'll keep her informed. We must do all that we can to protect our environment from being destroyed. It's up to this generation to make sure that the next one is afforded the same chance to enjoy these urban woodlands and enjoy both the physical and mental benefits that they bring to the community that they serve. We've got an opportunity to protect Scotland's green spaces and heritage through the planning bill that is currently going through Parliament. At the moment, it's silent on the environment. Rest assured, I'll be tabling an amendment or two to make sure precious green space is protected through the planning system and that we enshrine in-law protection for historic and locally important buildings. I don't want this left to secondary legislation and I'm happy to discuss my ideas with the minister. We need a plan-led system that ensures that when an area is designated as green belt and a council is fulfilling its housing targets, that speculative applications that ring alarm bells for communities just can't happen. As I close, can I thank again the local campaigners for their tireless work and to members from across the political divide for their support? My colleague Margaret Mitchell will be speaking later but I particularly like to thank Richard Leonard for his backing right from the start of this campaign. I hope that those who are taking part in today's debate will offer their backing to my constituents and all others fighting their own corner across the country to protect what we have. As Dr Walker said, when the green belt is gone, it's gone for good. Thank you very much. I now call Richard Leonard. I understand Mr Leonard, you have an important meeting after us that therefore understand why you can't stay for the rest of the debate. Richard Leonard, please. He will be followed by Richard Lyle. Thank you very much for your forbearance, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I apologise again for having to leave early. I begin by thanking Graham Simpson for securing what is a very timely debate, because it raises some profoundly important questions, not just about green spaces, but about where power lies in our society. The proposal to concrete over the green belt between Calderbank and Canbro in North Lanarkshire has provoked not only local but national outrage. It's clear that with this proposal, like so many others, that on one side is ranged big money interests, while on the other are ranged local people and local communities, resisting the robbery of a natural asset, an asset that is of historical importance, with significant ecological value and great recreational benefit. They are joined by the democratically elected and accountable local council, whose local development plan has reasserted just recently this green space as green belt, not for development. It was clear that the first proposal of application of notice submitted on behalf of the developer to North Lanarkshire Council in 2016 to build 3,000 houses and retail and other commercial uses was in direct breach of this local development plan that kept this land in the green belt. Now we see that a revised proposal of application notice has been submitted to include 1,600 private homes and 1,000 dwellings described as social, affordable and market rent properties. However, this is what commonly happens. Developers seeking to maximise stakeholder profit, pitching first of all with a proposal to maximise their gains, then scaled proposals back to make them appear more palatable to local councillors, who, for understandable reasons, want to see the building of council houses, houses for social rent and affordable homes. However, we have seen in other parts of Scotland that, once developments of this scale and this size are under way, the developers then seek to squeeze more houses in, usually claiming that the market has changed since planning permission was granted and seeking to reduce, in most instances, their contribution under section 75 agreements and claiming that the whole project would be in jeopardy unless they are able to build more and contribute less. Therefore, this debate is in the end about where power lies. We have also seen time and time again the democratic decisions of local planning bodies made up of elected councillors overturned by the planning and environmental appeals division of the Scottish Government, which appoints an unelected reporter. There is something quite wrong in my mind with a system where the decisions of local elected councillors can be overridden by an unelected central government appointed official, so this is also in the end about where the power lies. There is a broader lesson here for local communities across Scotland. Stand firm and fight and keep fighting and keep pressing this Parliament. There is a lesson here for members of this Parliament when we consider the planning bill before us over the coming months. Let us look at the right of appeal and let us consider equality of treatment, and let us consider what we can do in this Parliament to re-empower local government, to revitalise local democracy and promote the ballot box over the boardroom, and in so doing redistribute where the power lies. It has been a privilege to speak in this debate, to work with the campaigners locally. I admire their determined fighting spirit and their enduring faith and mine that, in the end, organised people can overcome organised money. Thank you, Mr Leonard. I say gently to the public in the gallery that you are not permitted to clap. I know why you want to, but you are not permitted to clap. I move on and call Richard Lyle to be followed by Margaret Mitchell. I thank Graham Simpson for securing this debate. I am certain of the immense importance of our environment, and it is impossible to understate the significance of its conservation. It is a worthy goal, but it must have its proper limits. It is well known that Scotland's population is rising. The number of households around Scotland's four main cities is projected to rise by up to 24 per cent over the next 25 years. Top of this, 150,000 households do not have anywhere to live and are on waiting lists. Graham Simpson and I attended a meeting with North Lancer Council last Monday, where he and I pressed the council rehouse building and their waiting lists. In addition to the rising need, homes in our major cities have grown waiting lists, homes for Scotland reports, that we need at least 100,000 houses of all 10 years in order to meet the demand. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, the fact remains. Families cannot live without a home, we must balance between looking after our environment and economic growth. Presiding Officer, I should say that I find myself confused. Sorry, I do not have time. We have Mr Simpson's Tory counterparts in England, constantly warning of a housing crisis in England, and that is something that must be done to relieve the suffering. They are threatening to remove the planning from English councils as not enough homes have been built on, so where will they build them on Greenbelt? Yes, yet Scottish Tories seem to be operating under a double standard. If they agree that there is indeed a need for more housing but wish to block any housing development in Greenbelt, then they must be either defying their party or they simply prefer homeless people to selective development. No, I am sorry, I do not have time. Of course, EU development will not solve the housing need. If it is considered, it will add 3,000 new homes. 3,000 new homes where families can put down their routes, make their lives for themselves, lives that will include 1,100 new jobs, if that project would create. Furthermore, it will generate an additional £126 million in household income for families who could come and settle and work in this area. It will bring much immediate relief to our housing supply. The Euro part will also bring £500 million of new investment to Scotland and Scottish businesses. I could go on and on. Over 200 acres of parkland will be retained. Investment in those opportunities will draw businesses to reinvest in their communities. I know that some may object that if we allow developments of parts of Greenbelt, we will be on a slippery slope to eventually lose them altogether. That concern is well-founded, but no-one in this chamber, as I have said, does not recognise the importance of conservation. Therefore, I must say again that we must strike a balance between the Greenbelt and development. Some might say very well that we should develop brown sites first, but they should be developed first. They should have been. Half of the homes that were built in 2014-15 were on brownfield sites, and 199 hectares of previously used land were brought back into residential use in 2016. What that objection overlooks again is the fact that there is not simply enough brownfield sites to build all the homes that are required, and the truth is that many brownfield sites are contaminated or have difficult ground conditions. We need to have a rational discussion about best to maintain the delegate balance between growth and conservation. We should have and should be having a national discussion regarding developing our Greenbelt in towns and cities. In closing, I have to say to the Tory party that its members should stop trying to have their cake and eat it. Do they want economic upturn in Scotland or stagnation? I know what I want. I want homes, I want jobs, and I want prosperity for Scotland. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to save Greenbelt land. I thank my colleague Graham Simpson for tapling the motion. The development in question is according to a controversial plan to build thousands of homes and amenities over a large swath of Greenbelt land. It will be built on a three-mile-square site containing fields and woods between the M8, Cairnhill and Calterbank on the outskirts of Airdrie. That is made up of two estates, Woodhall and Fasgen. The latter area is one that my family has had a long association with, as my father was born and brought up on Fasgen farm, where he lived until he was a young man. His smoke spoke with great warmth of his boyhood, and the idyllic freedom that he had roaming the countryside there along with his faithful companion, a collie named Kepp. While thousands were surrounded by urban development, this area of natural beauty has remained untouched for generations. Furthermore, it is of significant historical interest, boasting the Monklands canal, which in the 19th century was one of the busiest in Britain, transporting one and a half million tonnes of coal and iron ore a year. There are also remains of the listed Woodhall estate country house and one of Scotland's earliest railways. Despite that, it is countryside, now set to be destroyed and lost forever. The peace and serenity that hundreds of local people enjoy will be lost forever, and much of the flora and fauna will be lost forever, to be replaced almost certainly by traffic congestion and pollution. Let's not forget that this is green-belt land, that development threatens, along with other areas in North Lanarkshire, including the Douglas supporty estate, referred to as View Park Glen, which stretches from Coatbridge to View Park in Addingstone. It is only thanks to the View Park conservation group that this site of immense historic interest, ranging from the covenanters to Winston Churchill, has not been completely consumed by developers. The green belt and steps is subject to the Hornshill Gateside farm development, which was rejected by North Lanarkshire Council, but has now been approved by the Scottish Government reporter, opening the floodgates to further development so that steps such as other areas are being slowly overwhelmed and consumed. Finally, those green belt areas have recognised health benefits and are known to locals as their green lung, assisting in their physical and mental wellbeing. With obesity reaching record levels, it is key to encourage not discourage exercise, and, quite simply, the value of protecting those green belt areas cannot be overstated. So, whilst, as Richard Lyle says, we need more new affordable social housing, brown sites should be developed. All too often, they are plundering green belt land first as the most attractive to build on, and that is simply unacceptable. Only if there is a compelling reason should green belt areas such as the Fasgen and Woodhall estates be considered for development. I pay tribute to the Save Woodhall and Fasgen campaigners and pledge, along with Graham, my MSP colleagues and councillors, my whole hearted and continued support for their campaign. I sincerely hope that the minister will recognise that all brown field sites must be exhausted before there is any possibility of developing our precious green belt. Thank you. I call Andy Wightman to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. Mr Wightman, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Graham Simpson for bringing this member's debate. I am grateful for emails that I have received from many constituents in relation to not just to Woodhall and Fasgen but, in fact, green belts and developments across Scotland, many of which are coming in response to the planning bill. I am very sympathetic with the campaign that is being run by Graham Simpson's constituents, but I want to restrict my remarks to some more general points around the green belt. The concept of green belts has been around a long time following the 1947 Planning Act. It provided an important means to curtail urban sprawl and ribbon development, while encouraging more efficient use of the existing urban spaces. In Lothian, in my region, we have the Edinburgh Green Belt, which is Scotland's oldest green belt, which was established 61 years ago by the local authority at the time. It had no formal structure, so each local authority had to develop its own local policies around the green belt and to incorporate what were considered to be the boundaries of the green belt. However, it is now covered by the SES Plan, the Strategic Development Plan for the South East of Scotland. The strategic development plans, of course, are being proposed to be abolished, but, although I commend the concept, I do not think that green belts are in fact fit for purpose. A belt or a ring is a hard concept that provides a hard edge to settlements. Ideas about planning across Europe have moved on since 1947. If you visit cities and settlements in Germany in particular, best practice now is not hard edges, it is wedges, it is long fingers of greenery in the hearts of cities moving out into the countryside so that the distinction between urban and rural between brown and green is not so hard and it enables the maximum number of people living in settlements to enjoy and experience and benefit from green spaces. In Edinburgh, with the economic growth that is projected, there are increasing pressures on the green belt. I would just question that in Edinburgh context, a lot of the green belt is not green, it is actually brown, it is weeds, it is land that is held by speculators waiting for the day in which its land values were increased and they can take away a profit. We want to see legislation that strengthens the planning system, strengthens our ability to protect green spaces and the values that it provides. I am working with constituents here in Edinburgh, for example, who are being served with eviction notices to move them off farmland, which we would prefer to see as a food belt, which was part of the green belt, now is zoned as a film studio under pressure from the Scottish Government and other speculative development. Looking at the current planning bill, of course, there is nothing, as Graham Simpson mentioned, on green belts. Although in section 10 of the bill, under simplified development zones, it is clear that ministers want to revoke section 54 of the 1997 town country planning act, which prevents simplified planning zones in approved green belts. The current bill proposes that simplified development zones could be established in green belt areas to support, quote, town centre investment and regeneration. That is in the policy memorandum. I think that we have to have a look at that, but the bill contains some welcome proposals around local place plans, although they are very ill-defined. The wider issues raised by the member in his motion this morning relate to how the planning system works. In too many cases right across Scotland, we find not only green belts, but we find developments that have been unanimously rejected by elected members of the planning authority, often appealed by developers, upheld on appeal or, in many cases, rejected by reporters or ministers. As we have been hearing in evidence on the planning bill, that undermines the shared ambition to have a front-loaded planning system. Therefore, we will be bringing forward proposals to end the applicant's right of appeal, to strengthen the local development plan, to eliminate the speculative volume house building model, and to give local people and local planning authorities much greater say in how land is developed across Scotland, including in green belts. Finally, thank you again to Graham Simpson for allowing me this opportunity to air those thoughts. Thank you very much. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Monica Lennon, and Monica Lennon will be the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Graham Simpson for bringing this debate to the chamber, a very important and timely debate. I offer an apology. I had missed the original start of Graham's opening speech because I was taking a young person to meet the First Minister. That is perfectly all right, because she did send us a note in advance that was most appropriate. Thank you for that. I just wanted to declare it. Why is green belt important? We have heard a wee bit about that. It is important to have open space that links in with the play agenda, the healthy lifestyle agenda, and it is very good for physical and mental wellbeing. In the briefing that we get sent from the APRS, a survey in June last year found that 74.6 per cent of people agree that green belt should have stronger protection. Just this morning, it did not get taken by the Presiding Officer. We did not quite get to question 10, but I asked a general question on the protection for the green belt, and Kevin Stewart's answer, which I have now written for him, can be found on the website, says, The Scottish planning policy provides strong and flexible policy for green belts across Scotland. The bill will not change that policy, but aims to give it greater weight in decision-making. That reassures me that the Scottish Government takes green belt very seriously. I am going to make progress, so I have quite a lot to say. I have a lot of local issues. I think that if a developer wants to build on green belt, they must prove exceptional circumstances and benefit to the community, especially where there are so many brownfield sites in it. That is where I will probably disagree with my colleague Richard Lyle in the points that he made. There are brownfield sites in North Lanarkshire, apparently. That motion is about Faskin, which borders my constituency, the Carrenborough area, where we are a side issue. We are also fighting a local incinerator. I know that Monica Lennon has a debate on that next week, which I will be committed to speaking. I cannot go into much detail on that, because, as others have said, it is a local Government planning stage. However, I have already stated my overall position. I think that people really need to demonstrate why they would want to build an area, and what benefit that would bring to the community, as against losing the green belt area. Given the close proximity, I will commit to keeping a close watch on developments through the various processes. I would like to thank the groups of Faskin and Woodhall, who are nowhere here, Kathleen, Dr Glen, Diane and Peter Hall, who I met coming off the train today. I apologise if I have missed them today. I want to thank you for keeping me up today with what has been going on. Alex Neil, whose constituency it is in, sends his appreciation to me. He is a funeral this morning. Alone, on my doorstep all these years, Faskin and Woodhall area, I did not know until I went on my tour of it that the actual depth of it is quite a fantastic area. I have now started using it as one of my running routes, so I am not the best runner of it, but I have started to use it. I want to take some time off some of the minutes, so I have left to mention the steps area in which Margaret Mitchell had mentioned. There has been one decision there, as Margaret Mitchell said. It was a decision taken by the local authority not to allow development, but it has been overturned by the reporter. There are now two more issues of preplan stage. Like Faskin, it is at a stage where it needs to go in front of the local authority first, and quite rightly so. Given the issues there, that is directly in my constituency, and the skills and infrastructure are already struggling to cope, I have committed to supporting my constituency as best I can. When I see the plans coming in, if they get to that stage, I will object with the council if required and appropriate to do so. I want to make that commitment clear today. We do need more houses, and I am proud of the Government's targets and what we have done, but we also need our green belts for health and wellbeing. It is our job here as MSPs, councillors and others to find that balance, and I have every faith in this Government and the ministerial team to deliver it to deliver just that. I begin as a fellow Central Scotland MSP in thanking Graham Simpson for bringing that motion to the chamber to be debated today. A big hello and welcome to everyone who has travelled from the local communities to be here. It takes a lot of time and effort to engage in the planning process, and I say that as someone who is a former town planner, and I refer to my members' interests. Graham Simpson declared his love for the green belt, while I love planning, I love its contribution to place making, not just the great places that it has helped to shape, but also the important part that it has played in protecting the environment, the natural environment that we all love, and it is so important for our health, wellbeing and future generations. We are here because there is a proposal in front of the community. I guess that one of the benefits of the previous planning act, which was passed in 2006, is that we now have this process where early engagement and communities can get involved at the proposal of application notice stage. There is not a planning application in front of us yet, and I know that we cannot talk too much about the specific case, because we cannot get involved in the detail of that at this time. However, it is good that the community can have their say, and they certainly have done so. I think that the debate that we are having, now that we are looking at the planning legislation again, where we were told back in 2006 and earlier that, if we do this front-loading and have this early engagement and work towards maintaining a plan-led system, we will get the right development in the right places, and people will feel that they have a voice, that they have been listened to. We get away from just accusing local people of being nimby, so we do not want development and are getting in the way of progress. Being a Lanarkshire person myself, I know that we have a lot of vacant and derelict land in Lanarkshire. We have a lot of brownfield land, and we have a big site in Ravenscraig, where there has not been enough full lot happening. We have a system in Scotland that I believe is pro-development. Over 95 per cent of planning applications are approved. We have a culture that is very much about making stuff happen, but we have to look at the viability of sites and why brownfield sites are becoming less attractive, because we know that a big constraint to development is infrastructure costs, and we are looking at that in our scrutiny of the planning bill. There is stuff in the planning bill that is good and well-intentioned, but if we are to be ambitious for our communities right across Scotland, we need a planning system that is transformative, and I am concerned about the lack of resourcing that goes into planning, because all the people in the public gallery have to pick up the phone to a planning officer. They have to make sure that they are getting a proper hearing, and when we see that 23 per cent of local authority planners, their jobs have disappeared in the past few years, then that tells us that maybe our priorities are not quite right. Richard Leonard talked about where power lies, and when I was 16 and I went to university to learn to study the town planning and some of the debate today has taken me back, so we do not need to go over why we have a green belt and why it is important, but I was curious about why development happens and who makes decisions, and I think that it is that same curiosity that members are applying to our scrutiny of the planning bill, because environmental justice is not something that is just handed over to local communities, it is a battle, it is a fight, it costs money to challenge planning decisions, it costs money to get professional advice, and developers already, the system is stacked in their favour because they have an army of consultants and experts at their back, and communities do not have any of that, and when you have a development plan that says that this kind of stuff should not be happening, then we have to think about what that playing field is and we are asking communities to take on a big fight that is not of their making, so I know that my time is up. I am happy to take them to the chamber. I am afraid that you should be closing shortly. It is a four minute speech. I was happy to take it, but I appreciate where our time is up. Again, I thank Graham Simpson for bringing the debate to the chamber. I look forward to hearing the response from the cabinet secretary. Thank you very much. I now call Angela Constance to close the cabinet secretary. Seven minutes are there abouts. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank all members for their contributions this lunchtime. I have listened with great interest and to the detail of the thought and care that has been given to the speeches made this afternoon. I also want to welcome members of the public to the gallery. As Mr Simpson acknowledged from the outset and Ms Lennon, as a former planning professional, I have to state from the outset that it would be inappropriate for me, as a member of cabinet, to comment on the merits of any specific planning case. However, I am very happy to close the debate this afternoon by bringing together some thoughts on the policy issues and the opportunities that it raises in relation to both green spaces and community engagement in planning. All members have acknowledged that green infrastructure has a great deal to contribute to our quality of life, our health and our wellbeing. We all agree that green spaces are important to people. The most recent green space use and attitude survey confirms that more than 90 per cent of urban Scots say that it is important to have green space in their local area. Green networks can be the lifeblood of any village, town or city, contributing to quality of life and health and providing many other benefits such as managing flood risk, supporting wildlife and absorbing pollution. In Scotland, I believe, is an environmental leader and the importance of green space is widely recognised in our policy from health to regeneration, early years to planning, biodiversity to climate change. We have also supported evidence about green space, including the pioneering green space map. As a Government, we have also funded the third state of Scotland's green space report, which gives an up-to-date picture about green space in Scotland. It shows that we can rightly claim to be a nation of green towns and cities, with green space comprising over half of our urban land area. That is equivalent of a tennis court size of publicly accessible green space for everyone living in urban Scotland. With the wealth of green space through Scottish planning policy, we have set out how planning should protect and promote it as part of successful placemaking. We know that being able to access high-quality green space can improve the health, wellbeing and the confidence of people and communities. One of the issues that we have been looking at in relation to the planning bill is that the bill does not, on the face of its say, what is the purpose of planning. We have heard from some stakeholders that it would be very helpful to have that in the bill because then everyone who is involved in the process knows what is important and what we are taking into account. At a very high level in relation to the vision for our country and the things in relation to sustainable growth and sustainable development, that should be explicit in the bill. Can I just say gently that I have let you talk about—it is not like having a planning bill debate—it was about a green bill. I appreciate that, but it is almost like a stage 1 debate that we are having. I will just make that comment in passing. In general, it is very important that people understand the purpose of planning, the many objectives of planning infrastructure and planning policy in the law. As a Government, we will have to look carefully at anything that can be done to help people to be able to access the planning system in terms of understanding it. There are many misconceptions about the purpose of planning and some of the terminology that is used. I will touch a wee bit on that later. On the benefits of green space, we have seen evidence from the World Health Organization on the benefits of green space, including healthier birth weights, improved mental health, reduced cardiovascular mortality, obesity and the risk of type 2 diabetes. Recognising the range of benefits that green space offers, we added a new indicator to the national performance framework about access to local green space. We are also supporting projects that enhance green space within communities. The Central Scotland green network, a national development and NPF3, is Europe's largest green space project and is home to 3.5 million people. In our programme for government, we committed to its on-going delivery, and the Scottish Government provides the CSGN Trust with around £950,000 a year to drive its delivery. As well as protecting green space, we need to plan ahead to deliver the right homes in the right places. Many members have made that reflection. Plan ensued facility economic investment that supports jobs, and we need to ensure that communities have access to the facilities and services that they need. We support a plan-led system to achieve that. I suppose that that touches on Monica Lennon's point about the many purposes and objectives of planning. The green belts are a tool to help to guide the future development of our settlements by directing developments to the most appropriate and sustainable locations. Greenbelt designations and related planning decisions are, of course, for planning authorities in the first instance. However, Scottish planning policy is clear that, for most settlements, a greenbelt is not necessary, as other policies can provide an appropriate basis for directing development. There are strong protections in place for green belts across Scotland, but, although greenbelt is a well-known planning term, there are some common misconceptions about it. The greenbelt's purpose is not to prohibit development altogether. It is not intended to protect natural heritage or open space. There are other environmental designations and policies that are available for that. Of course, it needs to evolve as part of the development plan. Local authorities should keep greenbelt boundaries under review. Such reviews can support settlement strategies by directing development to the right location and help to maintain the long-term integrity of the greenbelt. Planning has to make the best use of the land that we have available—a point that is made by a number of speakers—but it has to support development that meets our needs for homes, for jobs and services. It can also ensure that future development is designed with existing environmental assets in mind. New development investment can also provide opportunity to improve access to green space for more people by providing enhanced links. The way in which the balance is struck is a matter for local authorities in consultation with communities, rather than for this Parliament to decide. The Government is working hard to improve the planning system and people's trust in it. With the planning bill, we have an opportunity to create a more streamlined and confident system that makes a real and positive difference to people's lives and their places. We very much believe that community power is a critical part of the planning process, and it is positive to see communities working together to share their views on how their places should evolve. By supporting the bill's provisions to create local place plans, we can do a bit to see more of that. I appreciate, Presiding Officer, that as we progress with the planning bill, we will come back to many issues across a range of planning issues, and we would expect to do that time and time again as Parliament goes through its appropriate processes. I thank all members for their contributions. There has been a wide range of matters covered. I am sorry that I cannot reflect on them all in the time that is bearing, but it has been a good opportunity to hear people's views and, I hope, a worthwhile opportunity for members of the public to hear MSP's debate and some of the intricacies around planning a little bit, but also, more importantly, the benefits of green space. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate. I suspend this meeting until 2.15.