Planning (Scotland) Bill

Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee in 2018. I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, members may use tablets during the meeting. I am delighted to say that, despite the weather, we have a full house this morning—no apologies have been received.

Under item 1, the committee will take evidence from two panels on the Planning (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Before we do so, I put on record the committee’s thanks to all those who attended our conference on the bill at Forth Valley College in Stirling on Monday. I will not invite members to comment on it at this point, because time is tight, although we would normally put that on the public record. However, a summary of the discussions will be published. I thank everyone who attended, because we got some really useful input that will help our scrutiny of the bill.

I welcome our first panel. We have Clare Symonds, chair, and Dr Andy Inch, trustee, of Planning Democracy; Dr Calum MacLeod, policy director of Community Land Scotland; Ian Cooke, director of the Development Trusts Association Scotland; and Petra Biberbach, chief executive of Planning Aid for Scotland. Thank you all for coming along and for making it through the bad weather, which has been called “the beast from the east”. I thank everyone in the public gallery for coming along, too. There is a lot of interest in this evidence session, so I thank everyone for making the effort to attend.

I will allow the witnesses to make some brief opening statements. They should be around two minutes, in order to allow as much time as possible for interaction between the witnesses and members. We will start with the witnesses sitting on my left. I do not know whether Dr Inch or Clare Symonds want to make opening remarks on behalf of Planning Democracy.

Clare Symonds (Planning Democracy)

Thank you for inviting us; we are very appreciative of the opportunity. I am the chair of Planning Democracy, which is a volunteer-led charity that has been around since 2009. We campaign for a fairer, more inclusive planning system in Scotland. We have a community network of around 500 people, including community councils, individuals and organisations. We have regular interaction and try to provide support for each other.

I have a cold and a tickly cough, so I might have to suddenly throw a question over to Andy Inch to answer if I have a coughing fit.

Is this my opening statement?

The Convener

It absolutely is.

Clare Symonds

I had better get on with it, then.

Planning Democracy is asking for a planning system that is seen as a way of positively shaping the places that we live in. We see planning as a mechanism through which to change the way that the market delivers, to get better-quality housing and remove speculation on land and so on. We feel that the bill has possibly viewed planning as a negative thing or a problem that gets in the way of development, whereas we see it as a vital part of our democracy.

Everybody knows that one of the things that we have been campaigning for is equal rights of appeal. We think that that is a mechanism through which we can achieve a stronger, plan-led system. That is something that we really want to achieve. Indeed, across the board, a lot of people support having a plan-led system.

We are keen to overcome the lack of public trust in planning. We feel that ERA has been presented as a blunt instrument that slows things down and that it is seen as a divisive tool that polarises people. It was rather hastily dismissed as such, but we want it to be seen as a tool that can be used to design a new system, that reinforces the principle of a plan-led system and that encourages people to be engaged at an early stage.

That is all that I will say for now.

The Convener

You were almost bang on time, Ms Symonds. No pressure, Dr MacLeod.

Dr Calum MacLeod (Community Land Scotland)

On behalf of Community Land Scotland, I thank the committee very much indeed for the invitation to participate in this morning’s evidence session, which is on a bill that we think will be very important in taking forward the planning framework and in connecting planning to other areas of public policy in Scotland. It is very welcome that the policy memorandum talks about moving the planning process from being a reactionary process to one that helps to promote and support investment and good-quality place making.

We provided a very succinct submission to the committee, in which we focused on local place planning. We also focused on a wider set of issues that we think are important in helping to advance the planning process and to connect it to the wider agenda. Specifically, we thought about repopulation and resettlement and how they might tie in with elements of the planning process, as well as rural and urban sustainable development more widely. We also thought about the powers that we have in that area and how we can rethink and reimagine in a practical, policy-orientated way people’s place in rural landscapes.

The bill’s ambition of having more community engagement and consultation and a more progressive approach to the planning process is very welcome from our perspective. As a representative organisation, we look forward to discussing the various aspects of our submission within the context of the broader discussion.

The Convener

Thank you very much, Dr MacLeod.

Ian Cooke (Development Trusts Association Scotland)

Good morning, everyone. I am representing Development Trusts Association Scotland, which has 255 members in communities scattered throughout Scotland. All our members are involved primarily in what I would call place making, so our interest in the bill is very much to do with how it will help communities and others to create the kind of places that people want to live in.

I say at the outset that I am certainly not a planning expert. The views that DTA Scotland put forward to the committee were drawn from our membership, which consists of communities across the country that have engaged or tried to engage in the planning process to get consent for a community-led development or to influence planning applications that they felt would impact on them.

It is probably fair to say that, from our experience of speaking to members, there is a fairly strong view that the views of communities are not sufficiently taken into account and often tend to be overridden by the plans of developers. There is an imbalance that we hope that the bill will address.

We are keen to explore some of the cross-cutting policy agendas, such as community empowerment, how the bill connects with land reform and—given that planning is very much about local democracy—how it might connect with the forthcoming local democracy bill.

The Convener

Thank you very much, Mr Cooke.

09:30

Petra Biberbach (Planning Aid for Scotland)

Thank you very much for inviting me. I am the chief executive of PAS and I was a member of the independent review that recommended changes in the planning system. I am also on the board of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and I chair its planning and access committee, so I have first-hand experience of how the planning system works in practice. In addition, I am the vice-chair of the housing association Link Group.

Committee members will have read our response to the bill, so I take the opportunity to give a little more detail of how PAS operates. About 20 per cent of planners in Scotland volunteer for the organisation and, increasingly, because PAS has moved to having an agenda about place, other built environment professionals, including architects, urban designers and environmentalists, have come to work with us.

PAS is celebrating its 25th anniversary. It is volunteer led, with more than 400 volunteers, and has three key services. In the organisation’s first 15 years, the main one was an advice service, which it still has. That service is reactive, because people phone or email to ask for advice. In the past year, we dealt with about 800 cases and there were about 1,000 inquiries that were not necessarily cases because we did not ascribe them to a volunteer.

We also help community organisations that work in social rights processes and on the ground with community groups that may want to take on assets or become small-scale developers. We have considerably expanded that programme proactively over the past 10 years, and we work quite closely with development trusts and associations.

Increasingly, to address anomalies in the planning system, we work with what we call seldom-heard groups, including Gypsy Travellers—Scotland still has a system that does not provide enough sites in appropriate locations for them. We engage very proactively with young people, because one of the failures of the planning system is that too few people know that it exists and get involved only very late in the process. By working with schools, community groups and youth clubs, we have found that young people are very ready to be involved in the place agenda. Last month, we launched the youth volunteer programme and 200 people have volunteered.

The Convener

We appreciate everyone’s opening remarks. We will move straight to questions.

Jenny Gilruth (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)

Good morning. The legislation proposes a local place plan as a new feature of the planning system, and LPPs would have to have regard to the local development plan and the national planning framework. Is the requirement that local councils must have regard to LPPs sufficiently robust?

Dr Andy Inch (Planning Democracy)

It is a weak mechanism. Local place plans sound rather like neighbourhood plans, which have existed in England since around 2010 and are, along with the local plan, part of the statutory development plan, which gives them greater weight in decision making. An odd feature of the planning systems in Scotland and England is a gap between an indicative plan and subsequent decisions, which do not have to follow the plan if other material considerations indicate otherwise—I am sure the committee is aware of that. That means that the aspiration for a plan-led system can be difficult to achieve.

A risk of a weak status for local place plans in decision making is that communities and others can invest hundreds of hours and huge amounts of voluntary time and effort into producing the local place plans, only to find that subsequent decisions broadly disregard their provisions. That has happened in some celebrated cases in England recently, despite the stronger status that neighbourhood plans have compared with what is proposed for local place plans. There is concern about asking people to invest time and effort in a process without there being any guarantee that there will be any accountability for the decisions that are subsequently made.

Local place plans could be a very positive way to engage people early on, but you need to think about what will happen at the end of that process and how those plans will be implemented.

Ian Cooke

Local place plans are not particularly new. Communities up and down the country have done variations of them for some time. In our experience, there is little evidence of planning authorities recognising or giving any weight to those plans, so we are concerned that there should be a clear link between local place plans and the statutory planning process. We are very supportive of the proposal for local place plans, but they will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a clear statement about their purpose and status.

Some of that might be done within statutory guidance, but we think that there is a way to evolve local place plans so that they have criteria. Depending on what communities want to build into their plans, there will be a legal consequence regarding what the planning authority must do to acknowledge that and respond to it.

The Convener

Thank you.

Jenny Gilruth

I have a brief supplementary question.

The Convener

Before you ask it, I will just check whether other panel members want to come in and answer the question.

Jenny Gilruth

Sorry.

The Convener

No—my apologies for cutting across you, Jenny.

Dr MacLeod, did you want to come in?

Dr MacLeod

Yes. Thank you very much, convener.

We reiterate and emphasise that local place plans are a welcome development as regards the decision-making infrastructure of the planning process and how it connects to wider issues. As colleagues have already said, it is very important to ensure that there is a clear connection between local place plans, their purpose, how they are resourced and what they are designed to achieve, and the development plan and the wider framework in that context. It is important that there is a link that is clearly achievable and capable of being implemented in practice. It is an opportunity for local communities to have a stake and a voice, which are sometimes airbrushed out of the planning process, in deciding what should be developed and moved forward at local level. The local place plan is a useful mechanism in that respect, but there needs to be a connection with the local development plan that is clear within that context and timetable.

The Convener

Petra, do you want to add something?

Petra Biberbach

Yes. As it currently stands, the local place plan system is too weak. We want to see a much stronger duty. If we are to have a plan-led system, it has to cascade up as well as down. The local place plan is a key driver in changing the current planning system and in affording everyone in the community the chance to come together to plan for their place. Therefore I agree with the comments about better alignment with other policy formulations such as the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016.

We are currently consulting on a socioeconomic duty for local development plans, which will have to fit in. The discussion around what we need from local place plans must be had at a very local level, with everyone involved. It has to be given proper status, so that the approach does not become tokenistic. Furthermore, it needs to be aligned with the local development plan, which, as we know, works to a 10-year cycle. A regular update of the local place plan and a regular conversation with all the different drivers and communities within that will probably very important.

That is unlike the position in England, where the system has not worked or has worked only in certain areas but has been given very little credence. In Scotland, a different system is in front of us, so we can drive something very new here.

Jenny Gilruth

I want to go back to Calum MacLeod’s point. In your submission, you say that there is an associated issue on costs and the support that will be required to develop plans. I suppose that there is also an issue of community capacity. Ian Cooke, in your submission, you point to local place plans working well when there is a sense of genuine ownership among local people. However, not all communities start from the same base level or have the same buy-in and engagement. What are the panel’s views with regard to, for example, poorer areas not engaging with the process or feeling that they do not have the capacity to do so because they might not have done so in the past? Does the legislation, in its current form, disadvantage them?

Dr MacLeod

The levels of capacity that different communities might have in relation to responding to the challenge and the opportunity of local place plans are an important point to raise. It is very important that communities in that position have or are provided with resources to enable them to have a say and the capacity to shape the process and what will be in the place plans. Support from various sources—from the Government or elsewhere—should be part of the capacity-building process, and different partnership arrangements will need to be looked at very carefully to see what the optimal solutions might be. Clearly, it is unrealistic to expect communities that might have different levels of capacity to be able to engage unless they have support to do so. That is not a reason—it is quite the reverse, in fact—for those sources not to ensure that communities have that opportunity and that, from the bottom up, what communities’ aspirations are for place making fits into the broader framework. Community Land Scotland thinks that that needs to be driven forward and hard wired in the bill.

The Convener

Do you want to comment, Mr Cooke?

Ian Cooke

Our experience is that a lot of disadvantaged communities are involved in trying to improve their communities; such activity is not restricted to higher-capacity communities. I appreciate that disadvantaged communities might require additional support to do that, but there is definitely an interest.

The key is for communities to have anchor organisations, if there is no development trust, for example. A lot of disadvantaged communities have locally controlled or locally led housing associations, which are well placed to provide a key role in the production of and support for local place plans.

I accept that resourcing is crucial. The approach will not work unless it is sufficiently resourced. We perhaps need to reflect the particular needs of disadvantaged communities in how we make financial resources and technical support available.

Petra Biberbach

Many areas have local planning outcome agreements. If we are moving towards greater alignment between spatial planning and community planning, I suggest that, on a practical level, there could be some alignment between the budgets of community planning partnerships and spatial planning departments, so that people work together on the ground.

Capacity building is vital. It is important for the very communities that do not feel that they have been given a voice in the past to be much more empowered.

Andy Inch

I very much agree that the aspiration to join things up at a very local level with community planning and other processes is the right one. There is a challenge, in that the resource implications of the capacity building and work that would be required to achieve the aspiration are massive.

I think that the financial memorandum suggests a cost of about £13,000 per local place plan—my memory is not great, and I might be wrong. I think that the figure has been borrowed from research by Locality

on the neighbourhood planning process in England. I understand from speaking to colleagues who study the neighbourhood planning process that the figure is very much at the low end; a lot of neighbourhood plans have cost upwards of that, and some have come close to £100,000. In addition, local authorities in England are given at least £20,000 per neighbourhood plan, to provide support to the communities that are producing plans. None of that seems to have been costed into the current proposal. That will reduce capacity.

Another distinctive feature of neighbourhood planning in England is the very variable geography. It is typically happening in places that are much more socioeconomically wealthy and where there is higher capacity; it is not happening in other places. If Scotland does not want to reproduce that kind of geographical variation, we need to think about proactive mechanisms to avoid it.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I remind members that I am a chartered member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

I want to follow up Jenny Gilruth’s questions. Under the bill, community councils or other community bodies will have the power to produce a local place plan. Is the scope of the power correct? In its written submission, PAS said:

“PAS would suggest that Community Councils, as the only community group with a statutory role in planning, should be required to take a lead role in any Local Place Plan being prepared in their area”.

In my region, there are big gaps in community council coverage. In areas of Scotland where there is no community council, might other bodies be better placed to drive the local place plan process?

Petra Biberbach

There are two parts to the response to your question. On one hand, you are right to say that community council coverage is quite patchy; community councils are struggling in many rural areas, and there is an ageing membership profile. On the other hand, community councils are the only democratically elected body at local level, in the pure sense. They are rooted in the kind of function that we are talking about, which gives them their credibility, to some extent.

Having said that, I would not say that it should be exclusively community councils that take on the role. We all need to work much more to empower more community groups to work together. Development trusts have a big role, as do young people, and there are many amenity groups. However, if someone has to drive the work forward, it must be an elected body, that is, a community council.

We stressed in the planning review that the role of the community councils should be extended to a statutory function in the development plan making. Unfortunately, that suggestion was not taken forward, but that would be a good opportunity to strengthen the role of community councils further. However, we are where we are. It would be good to have not only a lead body but a duty to include everyone in the community.

09:45

Monica Lennon

Does Planning Democracy have a view on that?

Dr Inch

We broadly agree. The role of community councils is very variable across Scotland. That level of democracy has not been particularly well invested in across the country over time, which makes things very difficult.

In relation to local place plans, I am very interested in thinking about the local anchor organisations and institutions in local communities. The intersections with community empowerment agendas and local democracy agendas, as well as where we can vest some kind of institutional capacity that remains in communities, are issues for the committee to think about. In disadvantaged communities in Scotland, regeneration funding, for example, has been project based. A project arrives, organisations are set up, they run for the length of time of the project and then they disappear. A continuing institutional or organisational capacity has not been embedded at that level. That would be the ideal place to vest—whether it is community councils or something else—the local place planning process.

Dr MacLeod

The question of what types of organisations might be engaged in that process and have a lead role in the local place plans is critical. Andy Inch is right that the role of community councils is very important but, in some senses, that role has been challenging, given the hollowing out of their functions and capacity in some instances. There is certainly some merit in thinking about other organisations that might be able to contribute to, or lead, the development of the local place plans.

In that context, community landowners are one type of organisation that might have a contribution to make in that capacity—not least because, in contrast to other types of land ownership organisations, they have a democratic, accountable role to play in the process, in terms of the way in which they represent their memberships and the communities in which they are located. Different organisations, such as community landowners, could play a role in linking the appropriate organisational structures with a democratic mandate through community accountability.

Ian Cooke

DTA Scotland certainly wants that role to be extended beyond community councils. We should look at which organisations drive local place making, and ensure that they are eligible in certain respects. Under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, community bodies are described in terms of a certain range of characteristics, including democratic accountability. A group that ticks those characteristics can access various community rights, so I want something along those lines to be produced to determine which community bodies are able to initiate and develop local place plans.

The Convener

Lots of members want to explore the issue further, but I have a question. We are specifically talking about the question that Monica Lennon raised of which anchor organisations, such as community councils, could drive this agenda forward. However, the question is not an either/or. In my area, a community council is as representative as it can be, given that there are rarely elections to elect community councillors. There is a democratic opportunity, but not much voting goes on—let us be honest.

We have formed a regeneration forum and undertaken a mapping exercise in which we have invited any organisation that we thought might be a community stakeholder, including housing associations, seniors forums and local colleges, to meet round one table every two or three months and start talking about local place planning and what that might look like. The question is not an either/or. I see nodding heads, but I will not put that as a formal question.

Who should do the mapping exercise across our communities, so that we can find out where the black spots are? The Big Lottery Fund had to do an exercise in Royston, in my constituency, because people were not applying for lottery funds. The Big Lottery Fund identified where the black spots were in relation to community planning, community empowerment and community activity. Should local authorities have a duty to identify where the weaknesses are in community resilience and drive forward work on that? If we wait for communities to do it, it might never happen. It might be in statute, but it might just never happen.

Petra Biberbach

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

I think that all the witnesses agree that the bill does not have enough teeth on local place plans. The bill states that councils only have to “have regard to” local place plans, which is meaningless. I think that the committee needs to hear what ideas there are to sort that out. I think that Petra Biberbach said that maybe it could all be done when the local development plan is produced. Should there be a requirement for councils, when they are producing local place plans, to reach out and engage with communities, and then to demonstrate in the evidence report that they have to produce that they have done that job, have asked for local place plans to be produced and have helped people to produce them at the time of producing the local development plan?

Petra Biberbach

We are talking about local development plans moving towards a 10-year cycle, and there are opportunities within that to produce local place plans on a regular basis, because communities themselves are dynamic as well.

So it should be in the local development plan.

Petra Biberbach

If you prepare something at the local level, it follows that it has to be part of the development plan if you want it to be meaningful and have a proper statutory role.

The Convener

That is a yes. You agree with Planning Democracy, then.

Petra Biberbach

Yes.

Ian Cooke

As you suggested, convener, there definitely needs to be a stronger lever beyond what is in the bill. The statutory guidance needs to provide criteria that clarify the different levels of sophistication that local development plans could take and the different levels of legal status would attract, depending on the criteria that the local development plan uses.

We are looking for something organic. It is much more about a power. However, once the local place plan is produced, if it meets the criteria, it must be reflected within the local development plan.

The Convener

If it meets the criteria.

Ian Cooke

Yes.

Dr MacLeod

We are clear that the local place plan needs to have a formal and clear link into the local development plan and to be sure to tie into whatever criteria are in that, as Ian Cooke said. There should be a clear formal link between what the local place plan does and how that fits within the local development plan.

Petra Biberbach

I would see it as something that gives democratic renewal. We want to move to a 10-year plan, because we in Scotland have been overwhelmed by constant plan preparation. We put down one plan and then have to start the next cycle, and that process can take away some of the vision, aspiration and delivery that we need.

I think that a local place plan has to be very much part of the local development plan process, as it starts with what the community wants. It is also very helpful, because one thing that we should not forget is that a lot of the local development plans are signed off by the locally elected members. As a result, there will be much better communication, with local place plans being produced by the local community on the basis of their aspirations and vision for the place and then forming part of the local development plan process.

It is true that, if new sites emerge, changes will have to be made during the 10-year period, but at the moment, we have changes within a year. If something needs to be addressed again, we have the opportunity to go back with the community, and that fosters a new kind of dialogue and engagement that we have not seen before now.

Monica Lennon

If the idea is that the local place plan is a really good way of informing the development of the local development plan, I should point out that South Lanarkshire, where I live, is a big local authority and that, at neighbourhood level, we would be talking about dozens upon dozens of local place plans if we tried to get things at the right scale. It could quickly become quite expensive if all these community councils and groups were to bid for funds for a local place plan.

As far as front loading is concerned, is there something missing in how we do local development planning, and do we need to direct resources to that instead? Perhaps the witness from Planning Democracy would like to address that point.

Dr Inch

We are talking about various changes to the local development planning process such as the move to a 10-year cycle, the loss of the main issues report and the watering down of the very positive suggestion of a gate-check process that came out of the review panel and which could have provided a very interesting deliberative opportunity to involve communities at the front end of the local development plan process. However, it does not look as though things are being taken forward in that way.

It looks as though the changes that are being introduced will make the local development plan less accessible to people. I am not sure that the rhetoric on empowering communities is being followed through in the mechanisms and the ways in which the local development planning process will change. For a start, where is the front end of that process for people to engage with and input into?

Petra Biberbach

We talked about community engagement 12 years ago, but we still do not really have it. If we do not want to repeat the mistakes of 2005 or 2006, the opportunity is now. We really need the committee to tease out the issues to ensure that the local place plan can work well.

The Convener

That was really helpful.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

We have already touched on some of this, but I want to try to expand things a bit and consider the potential removal of the requirement to produce a main issues report. What impact would that have on community involvement?

The Convener

Who wants to talk about that? I see that Dr Inch had his hand up first—the others need to be quicker next time.

Dr Inch

As I understand it, the idea behind the main issues report, which was introduced in the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, was very much in accordance with the principle of front loading and the desire to get people engaged early, before a draft plan was produced, to ensure that they were involved in shaping the issues that would influence that draft.

In practice, that has been difficult, and the main issues report has probably not realised those aspirations. It is difficult to get people involved in it. A very positive suggestion that came out of the review panel of which Petra Biberbach was a part was that of an evidence gate check. If we go back 50 years, the Skeffington report in 1969 was the first time that public participation in planning got mentioned. One of the things that that committee was interested in was front loading, but the fact that we are still having the same discussion 50 years on suggests that we have not cracked that.

With regard to alignment, which has been mentioned, local place plans might have to align with what is in the development plan. With the national planning framework becoming part of the development plan, that will create tension in planning, whether it be top down or bottom up, and that needs to be bottomed out. We have asked that you retain the national planning framework as a national level document, because there will be a difficult tension between them otherwise.

The Convener

I promise you that we will get to that issue, if I move things on a bit quicker.

As there no other comments about the main issues report, Alexander Stewart will finish off his line of questioning.

Alexander Stewart

I want to tease the gate check issue out a bit more. Dr Inch has identified that it has the potential to be used quite extensively and has pointed out that the community involvement in the process is vital. What evidence should the community take into account? What should we be looking at if the gate check is to be a quite well-advanced mechanism that can add benefit to what we are trying to achieve?

The Convener

I love it when witnesses look at one another and no one volunteers to answer. [Laughter.]

Dr MacLeod

I will volunteer, convener. Many issues could be taken into account with regard to evidence, but I would highlight affordable housing need, the scope to increase the population in urban and, in particular, rural contexts, services and various aspects with regard to types of development. Those kinds of things express community ambitions and objectives that have a clear relation to their sustainable development and cohesion. That is a pretty fundamental part of it, but there are others. It is all about enabling communities to have a voice and the capacity to express it.

The Convener

If witnesses want to answer a question and are trying to work out who is next to speak, I would say that the rule of thumb is that the first person to look at me gets to answer.

Dr Inch

There is also a question about what form the gate check might take. For example, we would be interested in the possibilities of having a citizens’ jury. Different models of deliberative innovation could be brought in to enable different forms of hearing and taking evidence. As has been pointed out, there are existing plans and strategies and huge amounts of evidence that could be brought into all this, and people could be taken through a process of sifting and identifying priorities that would feed into the plan. There are many different models and ways of organising this that would be a lot more interesting than just going through a checklist of existing statistical evidence, but you have to try to enable people to engage with that.

Alexander Stewart

People would probably engage much more and be much more alive to the whole process if they saw it as an opportunity to participate.

Dr Inch

I would hope so.

Petra Biberbach

The gate check was proposed in the first instance to allow greater community sign-off of local development plans. We also proposed a two-stage gate check because, if you are serious about front loading, you have to give it time and invest time in it. The beauty of the planning system is that there are many different values and vested interests, and they have to be balanced.

We also wanted to get away from the notion that a remote reporter should do the final sign-off, because this is really about driving democracy back into the local community. The gate check, with mediation as part of it to find out what the community wants, is absolutely vital. By the way, very few communities speak with one voice; there are usually lots of different communities and interests. There are also developers—be they on a small scale, as with development trusts, or on a larger scale—housing associations and Gypsy Travellers, who are never involved in the process.

We have to think very hard about how we resource all that properly. The idea behind the bill was to have a much more collaborative and inclusive approach to planning. We have to find ways of making that happen, and we have to invest time in it, too.

The Convener

If there are no more comments on gate checks we will move on to the next line of questioning.

Andy Wightman

We have had simplified planning zones—I think that there are two—but they are to be got rid of. Instead, the bill provides for simplified development zones, in which there will be a lot of up-front planning consents in relation to not just spatial dimensions but roads and infrastructure, such that the areas become, in essence, development ready and there is no requirement to apply for detailed planning consent for developments in them.

I will come on to the detail of the proposal, but first, does the panel support the principle of simplified development zones? Should they exist? Professor Cliff Hague, who will give evidence at a later date, says that the approach is the ultimate in up-front planning and that if we are doing up-front planning we should be doing it throughout Scotland. What are the panel’s views on the merits of such zones? Do they have the potential to deliver better outcomes for Scotland’s communities?

Dr MacLeod

Community Land Scotland thinks that there is merit in the approach, depending on what the zones are designed to achieve and for whom they are designed to achieve it.

Let us take the area that I represent. If a community landowner aspires to see particular types of development, whether that is affordable housing or business development, there is merit in being in a position to shape the process in ways that enable the community to fit its aspirations with the type of development that is going on. That takes us back to the point about identifying objectives. There is potentially considerable merit in a zone that is designed to contribute to development that is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable.

In that context—if I might extend the subject slightly—there is considerable merit in thinking about where, in a rural Scotland context, there is potential for development that is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. As we suggested in our submission, that can include thinking about resettlement and repopulation of areas where there are no longer human communities.

There is the potential application of mechanisms such as we are talking about in that context, if we think about how they can help to pursue the renewal of rural Scotland at community level and balance competing interests, so that local people and communities have a clear and prominent position in shaping what happens in their community and local landscape.

Dr Inch

We talked earlier about the plan-led system. Zoning is the alternative to the discretionary planning that we typically have in Scotland, whereby the decision does not necessarily follow what is in the plan. In zoning-based systems, which exist throughout most of the rest of Europe, in the United States and elsewhere around the world, what is zoned in the plan legally constrains what can be built. In effect, that is what we are talking about; we are introducing zoning into the Scottish planning system. That is a potentially interesting development that is worth experimenting with.

10:30

I have reservations about the description “simplified development zones”. Why are they not just being called better planning zones? Why is it not about getting it right up front to ensure that we get the highest quality of development, engagement and consideration of environmental constraints and factors, and that we lay out zones to produce really high-quality settlements? If you allied that to other mechanisms, for example, for compulsory purchase and land assembly by public authorities, you could begin to think about zones to innovate and produce the capacity to deliver development.

At the moment, we have a very reactive planning system in which we produce plans and then wait for the market to decide whether to make applications that will enable those plans to be implemented. The more positive and proactive zoning system could have mechanisms to ensure the implementation of those plans. However, as I say, if you are going to do that, it is important to get that up-front process right, because the plan becomes much more definitive, and if there is no proper engagement and consideration of all the factors and a real drive for quality, the plans will not work; they will sell the future short.

Petra Biberbach

I agree; I do not like the terminology “simplified development zones”. We want to call them “investment-ready areas” because we are talking about areas that have gone through all the discussions—there has been community buy-in, so the issue has been discussed with the community and there has been community engagement. The term “investment-ready areas” applies more widely than just to areas of land. It can also be applied to struggling town centres, for example.

We have only two such areas in Scotland, but there are hundreds in England. We need to think differently and engage up front with the whole dilemma of where and what we are building.

Area zoning would also allow us to be a bit more creative about the housing that we might want to build, so we could have more varied housing models and could perhaps invite smaller, more local developers to come forward. It is a great opportunity, and I think that we would want to see more of those zones happening.

Ian Cooke

If simplified development zones led to more proactive, public sector-led development, we would be supportive of them, but we do not have sufficient information about the approach to make an informed comment about it.

The Convener

Dr MacLeod, you do not have to speak if you do not feel the need to, but the opportunity is there.

Dr MacLeod

I do feel the need, if you do not mind. We have talked about the urban context, which is obviously important. However, when it comes to talking about the rural context, I note that the bill and some of the material contained in the policy memorandum are clearly urban focused. There is a lot of focus on town centres and the urban context. There is no getting away from the fact that that is important, but also important is how we conceptualise and think about the development of rural Scotland and where planning sits within that context.

If we are considering the issue from a sustainable development perspective, we need to think about how that issue sits in relation to the role that people and communities should play. We need to consider simplified development plans and our policy mechanisms and ideas in relation to rural renewal in Scotland. The planning process might play an important role in that regard, when it comes to ideas around where we want to have communities, how we want them to prosper and how that all sits together. Thinking about resettling, repopulating and where mechanisms such as simplified development might sit, among a host of other issues, is very important and worth not losing sight of not just in the broad policy context, but specifically in relation to the bill.

Petra Biberbach

The articulation of urban and rural is best defined through a community-owned local place plan, so that we can distinguish between the different communities and the different drivers.

Andy Wightman

I was intrigued by your answer, Dr MacLeod. The planning system is a spatial planning system, but you represent people who also own land and therefore can deliver. Are you saying that simplified development zones, together with local place plans and the fact that you own the land and can deliver, mean that that fusion could work for you, or are you making a broader point that, particularly in that context, simplified development zones could have a useful role to play in rural Scotland?

Dr MacLeod

From a community landowner perspective, the combination of owning the asset and the other things that you mentioned is an incredibly important and powerful tool in being able to develop the sustainability of a community. We have seen examples of that throughout Scotland, in the Highlands and elsewhere. I am from Harris. The West Harris Trust has brought about repopulation by delivering jobs, employment opportunities and other services. The combination of owning land and being able to manage it for the community is fundamentally important in unlocking opportunities for sustainable development. That is a critical element.

To address your second point, there is potential to think about how that mechanism can be used in a proactive, sustainable fashion elsewhere in Scotland. In the terrain that we have traversed in today’s discussion, we have talked about the need to front-load processes and give communities a voice, and the practicalities of how to do that.

Andy Wightman

My second line of questioning is about how the power is framed in the bill. Planning authorities can introduce a scheme and third parties can request a scheme. If the authority refuses to introduce a scheme, the third party can appeal to ministers. Ministers can alter a scheme or give directions as to how a scheme should be formulated. They can force a local authority to have a scheme.

Do you think that the balance of power is correct, given that such powerful ministerial powers are being provided to deliver what is, in essence, a local zone in the plan?

Dr Inch

Broadly speaking, that is one of a range of examples of measures in the bill that are quite centralising. The Scottish Government is taking a lot of new powers when we already have a very centralised planning system. The bill provides for considerably greater centralisation.

In thinking about sensible planning, we need to think about where those powers are vested. Local democratically elected authorities seem like a good place in which to vest them. There is not necessarily any need for the proposed level of central control and potential coercion to designate simplified development zones, which should be seen as a part of the local planning process.

The Convener

Graham Simpson has a supplementary to Andy Wightman’s question.

Graham Simpson

The flipside of that is that if national Government decides that we need more towns, for example, the use of this method might be one way of achieving that. Councils all over the country could say, “Not here.” We know that we need more building. Is it not right that Government should be able to say, “We need towns there, there and there”?

Dr MacLeod

The flipside of that—

Graham Simpson

Why not deal with my point about the flipside first?

The Convener

There can be lots of flipsides, but let us deal with one at a time.

Dr MacLeod

Forgive me.

Frankly, there are real issues as regards designations and where the zones should be. Particularly in rural Scotland, there are also issues around wild land mapping and where that ties in with development. There is a lot to be said about wild land issues, and it is very important that we do not airbrush people out of that process—as the current wild mapping process has done—because ideas of wild land are socially constructed, as there have been human populations and settlements in those areas. Changing that balance and getting it correct—or more appropriate—as regards the relationship with and place of people in landscapes, as well as helping to define landscapes, are very important parts of that process. That is partly what our map of no longer existing communities is designed to help move along, in policy terms.

The Convener

Andy Wightman’s question about the range of ministerial powers in relation to the designation of such zones was quite interesting. Does the panel hope that such a power would never be exercised, as far as dictating is concerned? Are there examples of things in the planning system not working, such as local place plans being unable to influence the local development plan, or planning authorities seeming to be out of step with the needs of communities? If so, there could be a need for the Government to exercise some of the powers about which Mr Wightman understandably has concerns. Would the panel like the Government to hold such power but never have to use it if everything else worked out, or would there have to be more safeguards about when it would be exercised?

10:45

Dr MacLeod

In that context, it is effectively a sort of back-stop power. You get that in other areas of land reform, such as in relation to the powers to develop community ownership. The idea is that, if there is a policy aspiration within the public policy arena to achieve particular objectives, regardless of whether they involve population resettlement or whatever, and there is a community aspiration to achieve those objectives, the power that you mention would be a potentially important back-stop power. In our submission, we talk about some other up-front powers in terms of compulsory purchase and so on.

Dr Inch

I think that we already have a lot of those back-stop powers in relation to the ability to call in applications, recall appeals and have oversight with regard to local development plans. Generally speaking, some of that central control is okay. However, one of the other proposed mechanisms of centralisation is that the national planning framework, which will be combined with spatial planning policy, will become a part of the development plan, as we discussed earlier—the development plan will be the national planning framework alongside the local development plan. That considerably strengthens and changes the nature of the national planning framework in quite a worrying way, as it means that there will be a much more direct influence in planning decision making than currently exists.

There are questions around the back-stop powers. It seems to me that there is also a creep in the bill towards more directly interventionist powers, and that should be a matter of concern.

The Convener

We probably have another 45 minutes left of this evidence session—it has been quite a long session, but we want to cover every area of the bill.

Monica Lennon

Looking at the clock, I can see that we have been discussing the bill for about 90 minutes so far, but we have not really talked about what the purpose of the planning system is. That might be because the bill does not really say what the purpose is. I know from the written evidence that has been submitted to us that PAS and Planning Democracy are calling for the bill to be amended to include a statutory purpose for the planning system. Why do you think that it is important for the bill to be explicit about the statutory purpose of planning?

The Convener

The ever-reliable Dr Inch is the first to catch my attention.

Dr Inch

The planning system that we have is largely unchanged since 1947. When it was introduced, it was assumed that there was a common purpose in relation to what planning is, so that purpose was never included in the legislation. There have been similar debates in England around the lack of a stated purpose.

When we talk about the need for the planning system to deliver, which comes up a lot in the written evidence, there is much less discussion about what it is supposed to deliver. There is a missing element there: what do we want planning for? If we had a positive stated purpose for the planning system, that would enable all decision making to be tested against a clear idea of the kinds of positive place making and public interest purposes that planning should be serving. That could provide something really interesting to test plans against. I think that, under the 2006 act, plans currently have the purpose of contributing to sustainable development, but that applies only to plans, not to the system as a whole. I think that having a clear definition of those purposes would help to clarify how we understand planning and could create a strong public interest purpose for the system and its operation.

Monica Lennon

Do you agree that it seems odd that the bill does not articulate that? If we are trying to get more of the wider public involved in planning, do you agree that we must spell out the whole point of planning, what it is for and why it matters?

Petra Biberbach

Yes, I think that that is really important, and we have made a submission to that effect. We need to know whether planning is about sustainable economic growth, for example, or the place agenda, with everybody having a right to participate in it. The purpose absolutely has to be defined. That will help to drive people’s thinking away from seeing planning as a regulatory function towards seeing it as an envisioning process that they can be part of. We definitely need a strong statement about what the mission of planning is.

Monica Lennon

You were involved in the independent review, so you might have more insight into this matter than other members of the panel, but do you have any sense of why the Government has not included a statutory definition in the bill? It seems pretty fundamental to everything else that has been discussed today.

Petra Biberbach

To an extent, we did not make a recommendation because we were focusing on how to make the planning system better. We were interested in ensuring that there was more front-loading and that the planning system would be more constructive and more integrated with other policy areas. Since then, PAS has made a submission on how we would like the vision for the planning system to be articulated.

Dr MacLeod

On reading through the bill and the policy memorandum, it is noticeable that it is very process orientated. The bill does not include a vision or a clear articulation of what the purpose of the planning system is, and in our view that is an omission. Without that, when the legislation and everything that goes with it enters the broader environment, how we can expect people to have any purchase or traction in relation to how they relate to planning as a process and a policy area?

Community Land Scotland would argue that it is extremely important for the purpose of the planning process to be articulated. What is its purpose? Broadly, it is about making sure that rural Scotland and urban Scotland are sustainable socially, economically and environmentally. Communities need to be given a voice in how that process works. They need to be consulted and given an opportunity to shape their places. We would argue that we need to think innovatively and imaginatively about the balance of development and sustainable development in the rural context in particular.

In our submission, we argued that there should be a duty whereby ministers must have regard to the desirability of repopulation and resettlement in future policy. We think that it would be extremely useful to have such a provision in the bill, which could be tied in with the evolving national policy framework and other areas. Keeping front and centre what the process of planning is about and for will help us to articulate and shape a lot of what comes from that.

Monica Lennon

Andy Inch wants to come back in, but I have a follow-up question for Petra Biberbach. The bill tries to address performance and has things to say about how we can get better at measuring the performance of planning, but if we do not know what the value of planning is, what the vision for it is or what its purpose is, will the proposed measures on performance be meaningful? Will they take us anywhere? We are still measuring how long things take, but we are not really looking at outcomes. We have talked a lot about place making.

I know that Dr Inch wants to come in, but I wanted to explore that issue.

The Convener

Absolutely. A number of witnesses want to comment. We will hear from Dr Inch after we have heard from Petra Biberbach.

Petra Biberbach

Gosh. It is extremely important that we set out the purpose of planning. The Scottish alliance for people and places has made a submission to that effect. We want what the planning system is all about to be set out clearly so that people understand that right from the start.

Petra Biberbach

We have a huge opportunity now, for the first time, to set it right. In 2005, when evidence was gathered and we were pushing for better engagement, we got the main issues report as part of early engagement. Of course, that is rooted in a language that the average person out there is just not conversant with, nor have we sold what planning is all about—it is about the vision of a place and it is also about addressing societal needs, whether that involves providing affordable homes, dealing with an ageing population, future proofing our housing stock or addressing climate change. All those issues must be captured by the planning system and by the place agenda. That is very important.

If we want to start talking in the language of the ordinary person out there, we need to talk about place, which everybody is passionate about. Everybody is passionate about how the children get to school and how we can age in a healthy environment. We need to rethink the language of planning so that we can translate what it means for everybody. It is about how we ensure that we have a well-functioning place. Twelve years on, I am really frustrated that we have still not got it right, but we have an opportunity to do so now.

Clare Symonds

I want to reiterate what other people have said, and I thank Calum MacLeod for mentioning that the bill is process oriented. It is really important to have a purpose for planning, because then we can use our planning performance measures to measure outcomes and it will not just be a case of measuring process. We can also start measuring things more qualitatively instead of focusing on performance figures on speed and efficiency. We would need to have far more performance measures, which might not be as easy to measure because they might not be as quantifiable. However, in the past there has been talk with Heads of Planning Scotland about introducing measures to assess performance in relation to how well the community is engaged with. That needs to be thought about—possibly not in relation to the bill, but for later on.

Ian Cooke

You will see that our submission did not comment on that, but I totally agree on the need for the articulation of purpose. That is an absolute prerequisite if we want to engage communities more effectively and measure performance.

Monica Lennon

It should not be an either/or situation.

As far as the purpose of planning is concerned, I know that the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland is advocating that there should be a chief planning officer. I wonder whether part of the issue is that there might be a lack of leadership in local authorities, because it is not just a case of looking at individual planning applications; it is about looking at planning strategically and the resource behind that for infrastructure.

Between 2009 and 2016, there was a 23 per cent reduction, on average, in the planning workforce in Scotland. On average, the planning service budget has been cut by about a third. There is a lot of high-level talk about the importance of planning, but is that being backed up by resource and leadership at a corporate and political level, locally and nationally?

Petra Biberbach

Clare Symonds

Well, let us face it, that is what we are here for.

As I mentioned at the start, the idea of equal rights of appeal has been presented as a blunt instrument that slows things down, polarises people and creates a divisive system, so it was somewhat hastily dismissed. However, we could use ERA to design a system that encourages people to front load and get engaged at the beginning of the system. As Andy Inch said earlier, we have been trying to do front loading for 50 years, so we have to think about doing it differently.

To make a plan-led system a reality, we could use the ERA mechanism in our highly discretionary planning system. Andy Inch has talked about the gap between the plans that we produce and the decision making at the end of the process. We want to bring together those two things because we think that that will create public confidence in the planning system. Why would people get engaged at the front of the system if the decision making at the end of the system could go against what they had worked hard to get at the front of the system? We very much see equal rights of appeal as a means of improving the front loading of engagement and getting people involved, because it will incentivise better behaviour.

We also think that ERA might incentivise developers to work harder to get people involved in public engagement because there would be a stick at the end of the process. If there was such an appeals process at the end, developers might work harder to get people involved in the planning and the application right at the beginning. It might also encourage developers to work harder to ensure that they put in a good application at the beginning. The evidence from Ireland is that equal rights of appeal does improve the decision making.

We have all been discussing the purpose of planning and having a much more positive planning system that delivers good development. We think that a system whose main outcome is supposed to be delivering good decisions and development should not be afraid of having an appeals system. We want people to be able to ensure that the development that they are getting is the best that it possibly can be. Why should there be a negative reaction to such a mechanism?

The Convener

Does anyone else want to come in on that?

Ian Cooke

As Mr Simpson said, there is a perceived inequality in the planning process. There is a power dynamic that needs to be addressed by the bill.

We are all looking to ensure that there is greater community involvement in the planning process. To enable that to happen, the community needs to have confidence that getting involved in the process will make a difference, which will ultimately lead to better place making. I do not think that that confidence exists at the moment.

We have not got a strong view on the issue. We believe in the principle of equality, so we feel that there should be an equal right of appeal or that the current right of appeal for developers should be removed. We are looking for a level playing field that might address the power inequality that I mentioned.

Petra Biberbach

The review panel took a lot of time to listen to evidence from across different groups and organisations. We looked at a recent debate that had taken place in the Welsh Assembly and at examples of third-party rights of appeal across Europe and beyond. The reason why we decided not to suggest the adoption of a third-party right of appeal was simply because we wanted to create a new planning system that would truly empower individuals and groups and would truly foster a dialogue between all the groups and all the interests.

Let us face it: planning is often seen as a David v Goliath battle. However, that is not the case. We have developers who are small-scale house builders; developers who build individual housing units; developers who put up shops; and so on. They are all developers, and we want to create a kind of dialogue that enables us to imagine what we want for places and for the nation. Very often, there are issues that we must tease out, and that can best be done in a dialogue. That is better than someone saying that they do not want to engage in a local place plan because they know that they can exercise their right of appeal later on.

I agree that the right of appeal seems to be overdue for reform. It was supposed to be in place for a 10-year period in order to help to smooth the work around the new Town and Country Planning Act 1947. I have discussed with some members of the committee the fact there might be an opportunity to look at the right of appeal again.

I have three points to make. I would say that a third-party right of appeal exacerbates conflict, it undermines the goal of very early engagement, which is what we want to see between all parties, and it would undermine a plan-led system. We should bear in mind that we are adding another layer—the local place plan—into the plan-led system.

There is quite a challenge. The planning system in Ireland is different in terms of the politics around it and how it is constructed. I would not want to say that we can do in Scotland what has been done in Ireland because, in Ireland, local elected members have no role in the planning system. There is no like-for-like comparison.

The issue is about bringing in the people from whom we do not hear enough. Chris Oswald has written in his submission to the committee that allocating sites for Gypsy Travellers is proving to be extremely challenging because local communities always object to them as bad development. Equally, community housing associations and housing associations in general find it difficult to get the appropriate land in the right location, again because some groups in the community view those proposals as bad development. We need to try to square the circle and have a planning system that can facilitate a better debate. For that reason, I would say that a third-party right of appeal is not helpful in relation to the current version of the bill.

Dr MacLeod

Community Land Scotland echoes that position on a third-party right of appeal. We are not in favour of its reintroduction for precisely the reasons that Petra Biberbach has articulated. It is important to front load the process so that it works effectively to ensure that community voices are heard.

In the preface to his question, Mr Simpson mentioned that it was a given that communities’ voices would not be heard in the process. That is true, and it echoes research on the place of people in landscapes that Community Land Scotland commissioned from Inherit, a Glasgow-based consultancy company, about how wild land designations interact or intersect with people’s views about landscapes. One respondent told Inherit that people do things to them, rather than with them, and that out-of-kilter dynamic is critical in how we think about communities’ voices. Wild land is an important example of an area in which we need to change and shape the planning process to get the balance right and incorporate communities’ views. The bill should front load the process so that those tensions are ironed out and people’s voices are heard more loudly than they have been.

Dr Inch

I come at this from a position of being in favour of equal rights of appeal. It is right to get people engaged early in the process, and it is important to get that up-front engagement right. At the moment, the discretionary nature of the planning system in Scotland means that the up-front engagement might be right but a subsequent decision might well depart from what has been said in the engagement process. Decisions about the use and development of land entail conflict, so although it is positive to get people together to try to shape agreement about how places should develop in the future, ultimately, hard decisions will be made, as a result of which some people will be winners and some will be losers. It is not realistic to expect conflict to be dissolved by front-loading mechanisms, which is why it is also necessary to think about the end of the process.

For really effective front-loading engagement, people have to be offered incentives to get involved. If a community devotes hundreds of hours of evenings and weekends to preparing a local place plan and getting it agreed, but the local planning authority makes decisions six months or a year or two down the line that completely overturn all that work, that does nothing for public trust and it hugely undermines all the effort and the front loading. In such circumstances, the inequality would be glaring. That is problematic for the legitimacy of the planning system and for the future of front loading and positive engagement in planning.

An equal right of appeal could reinforce a plan-led system; it would restrict a developer’s right of appeal and introduce a limited right of appeal for communities. Appeal rights would apply only when decisions were made that were contrary to the development plan. Petra Biberbach’s point that people could sit back, wait and not get involved in the plan because they would have a second chance at the end of the process would not apply. If a community did not get what it wanted agreed in the local plan at the start, it would not have those appeal rights. That would provide a powerful incentive for developers and communities to get involved in the production of plans. It would not mean that people could just wait to have a fight at the end of the process. If we want to be serious about creating a plan-led system, an equal right of appeal is a powerful mechanism that is not being taken advantage of.

It is disappointing that such an approach has been hastily dismissed. The arguments have not been looked at or debated in full, but the number of submissions that mention the issue shows that people care about it and are concerned about it. That is partly because the inequality is glaring and obvious. An equal right of appeal would not be a panacea—it would not resolve the problems of planning overnight, but it is potentially a very positive mechanism. It does not have to be a blunt instrument, as Clare Symonds said.

The Convener

Are there any other comments from the witnesses?

11:15

Petra Biberbach

I do not know where the phrase “hastily dismissed” came from. Third-party right of appeal was not hastily dismissed; we looked at it in a lot of detail, gathering evidence over months and months.

The spirit of the bill is to do with the desire for collaboration and engagement at the earliest opportunity, and we safeguard such an approach by having a duty to root the local place plan in the development plan. The important point is to find the right mechanism to protect the approach.

It is absolutely true that planning must always deal with competing demands, but we work with many different communities and we think that as long as things are explained and communities are enabled to understand, and as long as the decision-making process is transparent, even if people do not get what they want, giving people information and respect is much more powerful.

Let me give a recent example. We have been working with a community in Dumfries, which wanted to put forward certain developments, which did not happen. It helped to explain why that was not possible this time round. I do not agree that a third-party right of appeal will help the system.

Graham Simpson

I have questions for Planning Democracy and PAS, which have different perspectives on the issue.

One of the arguments against introducing any right of appeal for communities or people is that it could slow down development, which could frighten developers away. I have already heard developers say that they do not want to do business in Scotland because the planning landscape is worse here than it is elsewhere, and a right of appeal for communities would make it even worse. How does Planning Democracy respond to that? It is inevitable that the approach would slow down the system.

I have a question for PAS, too.

The Convener

I will let you back in to ask your second question after Dr Inch or Clare Symonds has responded.

Graham Simpson

Okay.

Dr Inch

The view that you have described is based on a blunt-instrument interpretation of how an equal right of appeal would work.

If we want a plan-led system, development that is designated in a plan should have a smooth process through the system. If a proposed development meets the agreed terms of a development plan, it will not be subject to appeal and the development will not be slowed down; it will be enabled and facilitated. That is proper and correct.

If a proposed development is not in accordance with the development plan, it is right to say that we might want to have the capacity to take a second look at it. The decision is going to be controversial, because the development is outwith the parameters of what has been agreed and expected, and in that situation it is right and proper to give the matter a bit of extra scrutiny.

Yes, such an approach might lead to a slower process for such developments. However, it creates an incentive to ensure that proposed developments are in accordance with and strengthen the plan. The developments that are slowed down are the ones that are outwith the plan and at which it seems fair enough to have a second look. We are not saying that such a development should be dismissed out of hand and refused; it might well be that the situation has changed and the development should be approved. However, it is not unreasonable to say that there are good grounds for taking a second look.

Clare Symonds

I suggest that marginal or potentially controversial decisions would also be subject to a right of challenge or appeal. That might produce some delay in the process, but it is important for democracy and for people’s confidence in the system that if, for example, a decision is to be made by the council about development on its own land, the proposal will be looked at.

Such an approach can only provide confidence. It might delays things for a few weeks, but we ask members to consider not just the process but the wider benefits.

Graham Simpson

PAS said in its submission:

“provisions in the Bill will promote stronger public involvement”.

I do not see that in the bill at all. I think that we could end up with less public involvement. PAS might want more public involvement, but I do not think that the bill provides for that.

You said that the system of appeal is ripe for reform, but you did not suggest reforms. Perhaps you will do that now.

Petra Biberbach

First, the review panel was more ambitious. However, I think that giving the local place plan proper teeth can address the democratic deficit and produce a more engaged public. Currently, the public are not engaged. The same groups, who know how the planning system works, get engaged again and again, but the vast majority of people out there are not involved, and we want them to be involved.

On rights of appeal, I have been looking at what happens in most of continental Europe, where there is no right of appeal on both sides. The bill gives us an opportunity to consider what we can do in simplified development zones, where planning is front loaded and the developer and everyone else sit round the table. There might be opportunities there. Further work is required on that.

Graham Simpson

Are you suggesting that we remove appeal rights in simplified development zones?

Petra Biberbach

I am just saying that there might be opportunities to look at something fresh.

The Convener

There are a lot of supplementary questions from members.

Kenneth Gibson

Clare Symonds talked about the approach in Ireland, where infrastructure projects and specific developments are excluded from third-party right of appeal. There is clearly a need to protect some developments from delays that would impact on Ireland’s competitiveness. If a third-party right of appeal is introduced in Scotland, what exemptions from the process should there be, if any?

The Convener

Let us hear from advocates of a third-party right of appeal.

Dr Inch

We said in our submission that there should be a limited right of appeal, which would apply—both for developers and for communities—when decisions were to be made that were a departure from the plan, when a local authority had an interest in the land, and when a decision was being made against an officer’s recommendation, because that would indicate that there was some controversy or something that it might be worth having a second look at.

There are planning systems, for example in Australian states, in which third-party rights are suspended on certain priority projects. National developments might be treated in that way.

There is a much broader question about how we enable engagement in big infrastructure projects. That is a big issue, which is separate from the right of appeal issue to some extent. In Scotland we already have a complex consents regime: energy consents and other things go through different regimes and are not fed through the planning acts. There is a whole set of questions about how the different regimes would be aligned and how different types of infrastructure development, including national developments in the NPF, could be subject to proper public scrutiny, engagement and input. That opens up a much broader range of issues.

For the past 20 to 30 years, the idea that planning is a source of delay has been repeated around the world and has been a powerful argument for reform of planning systems. However, if we consider the life cycle of big infrastructure projects, the evidence is that the length of time that is spent on the planning process and making decisions is not great.

I am thinking of a paper that was published last year by colleagues at Oxford Brookes University and Cardiff University, who looked at big infrastructure planning in England and showed that the planning process has not really changed over time and that delays are as likely to be caused by developer commitment wavering or political commitment wavering as they are to be caused by planning.

When the environmental, economic and social impact of big infrastructure developments are considered, it is right that we have a democratic process of scrutiny and you need to think about how to include and enable that process. Big infrastructure projects are a separate issue that is worth debating. The principle that scrutiny is important also applies, but it is even more important on such developments.

Kenneth Gibson

We heard from Mr Cooke that

“the community needs to have confidence”

in the process, and throughout this morning’s session we have heard from all the witnesses about the need for community engagement.

Mr Inch talked about officers’ views being overturned, but those will be overturned by elected representatives who have a direct link to communities.

The Planning Democracy submission states:

“right of appeals for communities would create a powerful incentive for individuals, community groups and developers to get involved in the production of plans”.

Who are those communities? How would a community be involved?

I was first elected in 1992. My experience has been that community engagement often extends to seven or eight people turning up at a meeting and claiming to represent the community, but those people do not liaise with other people in the community—they do not even do newsletters and they might not have a website or even a collective email address. However, elected representatives stand or fall by their decisions. How do we ensure that this group—this community—that everyone seems to talk about is representative of the people in an area?

If we are designing local plans, how do we exclude the issue of nimbyism? We have heard it said that if a plan is put together, and as long as that plan is adhered to, there will not be an issue with third-party right of appeal. However, I have communities in my constituency—I know that everyone else does, too—who point-blank do not want any development. They do not want housing, they do not want wind turbines and they do not want economic development. Often, the people in those communities are retired and they have reasonable pensions, so the issues of economic growth and sustainability are matters for someone else. How do we counter those issues and ensure that we move forward?

On Monday, Alexander Stewart and I had two sessions with 19 organisations that represented a host of groups that are involved in development. None of them supported third-party right of appeal because they all considered that it would put Scotland at a competitive economic disadvantage.

The Convener

You squeezed a lot in there, Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson

Indeed, because I knew that I probably would not get another shot at doing so.

The Convener

That is probably true, unfortunately, because of the time limitations. Who wants to respond?

Petra Biberbach

The generational imbalance is an important debate. Talking about the current system is a challenge, because we are also looking to have a new system. Fundamentally, we need to bring in many more young people. Scotland has signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is about ensuring that children are involved in decisions that affect them. Place affects young people, whatever their age. Indeed, it affects everyone, but young people are disproportionately not involved. If we are talking about who needs the housing of the future and what infrastructure we need, we must involve all people in the debate. It is not about being punitive; it is about being proactive, engaging and listening to everybody's views.

We recently completed another charrette not far away from here. We went out and brought in young people, those who do not usually have the time to get involved and people who are in care homes and who wanted to have a discussion with young people. Such debate is very important. If we are talking about having a new planning system that is inclusive and collaborative, and which facilitates development of whatever size and kind, we need to involve everyone. That is not a naive view; I see that happening on the continent, where it works well and speeds up the process.

The Convener

I promise to bring in Planning Democracy in a second—I am sure that you will have a substantive response—but first I bring in Dr MacLeod.

Dr MacLeod

I will make a quick reflection on Mr Gibson’s question about who the community is; that is probably a three-day conference in itself. [Laughter.] I will fly the flag for community landowners. They represent their communities, because they are elected to bodies that have constitutions and are accountable through the members of that community; they are voted on to a trust or a board and they have to represent their community in that context.

That mechanism of accountability, transparency and democracy does not exist in some other types of land ownership in Scotland—that is certainly the case for private land ownership and in other instances, too. That is a critical point for community land ownership per se.

11:30

As for Mr Gibson’s point about challenges to development, which I think that Mr Simpson mentioned when he referred to drags on development, the critical thing as far as Community Land Scotland is concerned is that when we talk about development, we mean sustainable development. That is about getting the balance right between the economic, social and environmental aspects. Forgive me for going back to this, but I think that it is important: one of the best and most effective examples showing where these tensions exist and why communities find it challenging to strike the right balance is the concept of wild land and wild land mapping. Often a designation or label is given to a part of the landscape, but it is just an artificial construct; human engagement gets moved out of the process, with significant implications for how people and communities engage with the landscape in that context.

Development opportunities have to be sustainable and reflect economic growth, environmental sustainability and social cohesion, but the balance needs to be right. Community Land Scotland would argue that realignment should be part of the process and that—just to continue with the wild land example—we should think about how that sort of thing can be rebalanced. In our submission, we call for the bill to contain a provision in which ministers have regard to a map of human communities that no longer exist, because—as we, at least, would argue—that would sit very nicely or appropriately as part of these debates, conflicts and challenges around sustainable development. We would certainly advocate that being in the bill as well as being part of policy.

The Convener

You were right to come back to the issue of wild land, because you might not get another opportunity to do so in what is a quickly shrinking evidence session.

Dr Inch

From a Planning Democracy perspective, communities are often portrayed as nimbys. It is a very useful label, as it dismisses them as having a fixed and unchangeable set of interests and as being opposed to everything. That reflects a planning system that is adversarial, and it is adversarial because of the discretion that exists at the end of the process, which, by and large, means that speculative development applications are put forward and people react to them.

In our experience, however, people are far from having hugely fixed nimby interests; they care about and want a stake in the future of the places where they live. In that regard, the nimby label is not useful. It is a way of dismissing people and the responsibility of the planning process to allow those people to explore how various development needs can be met in future. That is the positive and proactive concept of planning that has been talked about a lot today, and people need to think seriously about how the process can achieve those things. There is a real problem in that respect, and it reflects a planning system with very entrenched positions.

That entrenched side of planning comes up a lot in Planning Democracy’s work with regard to repeat applications. A developer’s application for a site might get refused, but a couple of years later, they will come back with the same application. The community goes through the whole process of mobilising around something that is often outwith an agreed development plan, the application is refused and then it comes back again and again. If they are well resourced, developers can win that sort of war of attrition, and it is therefore no wonder that people step back and become very opposed to developments that they feel are being done to them instead of with them. That example shows why such positions get taken in the planning system, and we need to do something about that.

I would also highlight the issue of competitive disadvantage, which has been bandied about a lot with regard to appeal rights. I would say that it is a blunt instrument version of the ERA argument. If you really think that Scotland’s competitiveness will be disadvantaged because of an ability to take a second look at applications that sit outwith the terms of an agreed development plan, that competitiveness has a very thin base. I do not really believe that that argument stacks up strongly when it is applied in that restrictive way.

Clare Symonds

Mr Gibson mentioned councillors, too. I have discussed the matter with them, and the Edinburgh councillors agreed. They asked for a right of appeal because they found that the imbalance of one party having the right of appeal and not the other meant that their decision making was being biased towards the person who had the right of appeal—they did not want to make those sorts of decisions, in case the developer made an appeal. The councillors wanted the right of appeal so that they could make stronger decisions and be empowered to make a decision that went contrary to what an applicant wanted without the threat of an appeal and its cost.

The Convener

There are a couple more questions on this issue.

Andy Wightman

The Edinburgh example that Clare Symonds just mentioned is, of course, the council seeking to restrict the applicant’s right of appeal, because it wants to have the final say in what applications take place, in a sense. West Lothian Council’s written submission said that it had earlier

“called for the right of appeal to be removed where a development proposal was significantly contrary to an up to date development plan”

Petra Biberbach

I firmly believe that we should open up the process so that everyone comes into the discussion about where we put our 50,000 affordable homes. Bringing in elected members, the various community groups and the developers to have a discussion that is adult and democratic is what we need right from the start.

On the panels’ recommendations, the then cabinet secretary gave the panel the specific remit of reviewing the planning system and looking at innovation in housing. On community engagement, so many different communities out there have very different views, so bringing them all together is important. That is where we are right now, and that is why members have the opportunity to create a planning system that is fit for the next 20 or 30 years or however long it takes.

Monica Lennon

I turn to Planning Democracy on that point. What you have proposed in your submission is not just an open-ended right of appeal but an attempt to be proportionate in setting out criteria. I think that Petra Biberbach has said that when the former cabinet secretary commissioned the review, the remit was to look not at the whole scope of planning but very much at delivery and housing. Was that a missed opportunity or do we still have time to get it right?

11:45

Dr Inch

I would like to think that there is still time to get it right. We have a bill that needs to be worked up, and there are a lot of concerns about its content.

We have said that we do not think that the debate has been well handled, particularly around the equal right of appeal. The Government was quick to launch its 10 commitments in response to the panel’s report, one of which was a negative commitment—a commitment not to take certain action—and that was effectively an attempt to close down debate. We feel that that has been driven largely by the concerns of the development industry and others that are based on a blunt-instrument interpretation of what an equal right of appeal is. Petra Biberbach’s aspirations to get people involved early and get agreement sound fantastic, and all of that front-loading stuff really matters, but where are the mechanisms that will make that happen? People have been saying that since the 1969 Skeffington report. That is 50 years of good intentions that have not yet materialised.

What is there in the bill that can substantially change and challenge that, and that recognises the nature of the planning system that we have—the nature of the discretion, the gap between the plan and the decision, and what that means for the ways in which decision making operates? I do not see that sort of analysis anywhere in the discussion, and that is a serious flaw in the understanding that underpins the bill.

Monica Lennon

My understanding is that Planning Democracy is completely volunteer led and that you do not get any public funding. It struck me from looking at some of the submissions that community engagement is not always a bottom-up, grass-roots thing. There are a lot of people who work in public relations or in other organisations who come in and do community engagement. I picked out one submission from the Birnam to Ballinluig A9 community group. On PAS, which was brought in to act for Transport Scotland, it states:

“PAS have outsourced the design, printing, distribution of communications for the community and even social media for the Co-Creative process from the local area to an Edinburgh agency.”

There seem to be an awful lot of people who may have a stake in the status quo, which involves doing community engagement to communities. That may pick up on Graham Simpson’s point about people feeling that planning is done to them. Is there a view that those processes, particularly when PAS holds an event on a Saturday morning and says, “Here’s a chance to come in and inform the process,” are a bit of a tick-box exercise?

The Convener

The PAS submission states that there could be a benefit in creating

“a statutory duty to involve young people in the planning system”,

and that that could achieve a lot. How could local authorities prove that they have met requirements to take forward that duty? Is that something that PAS is particularly passionate about? You have put it in your submission, and you have an opportunity to make some brief remarks about that.

I will come to Dr MacLeod in a second to address one of his suggestions.

Petra Biberbach

There is a deficit between the people who are currently involved in our planning system and the many young people who are not engaged. We see an opportunity to change that, especially through ageing community councils, which need that sort of renewal. We are currently working in a school in the Borders over a four-year period to bring young people into the planning system, to help them understand the place agenda, and to work with community councils and development trusts.

Bridging the gap, as it is called, is a new way to do things. It is vital that the voices of young people are heard. They will live longer with the decisions that adults make, and we have neglected to look at the longer-term plan that young people will need. The duty is there because Scotland has signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. If you can find some mechanism through which to engage young people, it will change the debate, because they have great capacity to think out of the box.

The Convener

Thank you for putting that on the record. The debate has squeezed out the comments that I think Dr MacLeod hoped to make about Community Land Scotland’s proposals to encourage resettlement of parts of rural Scotland. You have impressively managed to squeeze some of those views into the two plus hours, but before we suspend the session, this is an opportunity to put on the record why that would be a desirable objective for the planning system.

Dr MacLeod

Thank you for the opportunity, convener. It is worth reiterating that Community Land Scotland thinks that there is a pressing and compelling case for considering resettlement and repopulation of parts of rural Scotland alongside the issues that are already in the bill. That case is driven by the social cohesion of rural Scotland and sustainable development in that context. We need to get a balance between addressing challenges in existing communities and considering how to restructure where communities might aspire to exist and how that might benefit their quality of life, the ways in which they relate to the environment and their economic development opportunities. We are calling for a duty for Scottish ministers to take account of that desirable, relatively modest but important development in how we think about the planning process and how rural Scotland should ultimately thrive. We advocate having such a duty and we would like that to be considered in the committee’s report, if you see fit to do that. We would also like to see that duty in the bill and in the wider policy framework.

We have called for a particular stand alongside powers in relation to how to do that—if I can put it in that terribly ineloquent way. The Scottish Government and other authorities could be required to have regard for resettlement and repopulation, which might entail the need for powers such as for compulsory purchase.

From our members’ perspective, it is important for Scottish ministers to produce a map of communities that no longer exist, which is important with regard to the relationship between people and landscape and how wild land and ideas of sustainability sit within it. The map would be an important complementary mechanism to help to shape decisions on planning and sustainability in a rural context.

The Convener

I ask Clare Symonds to hold on to that thought. The session is about to get even longer—it has now lasted for two hours and 45 minutes—but we are trying to maximise the opportunity to put things on the record.

Mr Wightman has a question that will give the last opportunity for an answer. Brevity will be anticipated and expected in the question and the answers—important as they are.

Andy Wightman

Thank you, convener. I will ask about the national planning framework and the strategic development plans. What are your views on the big proposals to change the status of the national planning framework so that it becomes a statutory part of the development plan? It was introduced as a light-touch spatial expression of ministers’ policies and does not have much scrutiny in this place.

Secondly, there is a proposal to abolish the strategic development plans. However, in 2014, the Scottish Government’s review said that the system was “not ‘broken’” but that its potential was not yet fully optimised, and we have had evidence from Clydeplan, for example, which has been working on this issue for 40 or 50 years, which very much supports the idea of strategic development plans.

Does anyone have any thoughts on those issues? If you do not have any thoughts, do not feel obliged to speak—as the convener says, we are tight for time.

The Convener

Also, if you have many thoughts, you can give us a flavour of them now and then write to us later with more details.

Clare Symonds

We have already said that we think that the national planning framework should be a national-level document and should not be incorporated into the local development plan. That is all that we would want to say about that.

We feel that the strategic plans have not had time to bed in and that it might be a bit premature to lose them at this stage.

On the issue of the inequality of arms, I would just say that developers can put in repeat applications because they have the luxuries of time, management and resources and have an understanding of the planning system that communities do not have, and they have a right of appeal. When I started campaigning for an equal right of appeal, I was quite surprised by the kind of reaction that I was getting against it. Over time, I have come to realise that it is because there is another group of people aside from nimbys: the diimvis. That stands for “development is in my vested interest”. We have to be aware of that group.

The Convener

I am sure that, when we talk to developers, they will defend themselves and tell us what they believe the impact of the equal right of appeal would be. Thank you for that comment—you were given the opportunity to put your view on the record and you took it.

Dr MacLeod

From the perspective of Community Land Scotland, the key issue is to ensure that the national planning framework and the levels of policy and governance around it fit together and work in the interests of communities and the sustainable development of Scotland. Without rehashing what we have said, I will say that we are calling for the broadening out of the vision thing in relation to planning, and how all the levels fit together. We hope that the proposals in our submission, which you have read, will propel that forward.

Ian Cooke

I have nothing further to add.

The Convener

You are my absolute favourite witness right now.

Petra Biberbach

We recommended the removal of strategic development plans in order to allow greater focus on local plan making and to allow authorities—especially in the context of city regions—to work together much more nimbly. We felt that, in the past, the lack of the ability to work together cohesively resulted in a lot of delays.

In line with the new bill, there should be less focus on yet another big document and more focus on spatial strategies and delivery. Delivery is one of the things that got lost in the morass of plan making in Scotland. There have been so many plans.

The national planning framework is absolutely vital. We have argued that it should be discussed at a parliamentary level, because it is an expression of interest in what society in Scotland needs and wants. A greater alignment with housing is important, and infrastructure should be discussed at that level, hopefully on a regular basis.

Cascading that down, the local development plan should be a local expression of those needs that brings in the local place plan. It is important to have a system in which everything fits neatly, up and down, and which enables everyone to know what is expected of the different parts.

The Convener

I think that, in this morning’s session—it has been nearly three hours, now—everyone has had a fair crack at putting their views on record.

I thank the witnesses who will join us for our next panel, who have been waiting incredibly patiently. We will suspend in a moment, and resume at 12:05. The next evidence session will run until 12:45.

I thank everyone for giving evidence this morning.

11:58 Meeting suspended.

12:05 On resuming—

The Convener

We move to our second panel of the session. First of all, I make apologies on behalf of Fiona Ellis, who is a business support manager at DF Concerts & Events; Mike Grieve, who is the owner of the Sub Club and board member of the Night Time Industries Association; and Mick Cooke, who is a composer. They have fallen foul of the red weather warning that is in place across east and central Scotland and towards Glasgow. However, we are delighted to have with us today Beverley Whitrick, who is the strategic director of the Music Venue Trust; and Tom Kiehl, who is the director of government and public affairs at UK Music. I understand that he came from further afield to attend—the planes were flying if other things were not running.

I thank the panellists for their patience. Our initial session was substantial and lengthy, but it had to be given the range of issues that had to discuss. This evidence-taking session will be much more focused. However, it is only reasonable to allow both of you to make opening remarks.

Tom Kiehl (UK Music)

Thank you very much for allowing us the privilege of talking to you today about an important issue for the music industry. UK Music is the umbrella body for the commercial music industry across the United Kingdom. We are globally unique, because we bring together the live music and recorded industries, the creators, the music publishers and the collecting societies. I do not think that there are many other organisations in the world that are able to bring together such disparate bodies under one footing.

We carry out a lot of work on data and research into the music industry. We value the music industry’s contribution to the economy at about £4.4 billion. It generates £2.5 billion-worth of exports and employs 140,000 people. Those are UK-wide figures, but we also report on Scotland-specific figures.

Scotland makes an immense contribution to the music industry. Last year, we reported that music tourists coming to Scotland spent about £334 million, comprising £212 million on concerts and £123 million on festivals. The number of people who came to Scotland to attend live music concerts and events was 1.2 million, and music tourism sustains 4,000 jobs.

As an industry body, we are always looking at areas where the industry can be strengthened. Over the past 10 years, we have focused on concerns about venue closures, particularly at the small end and the grass-roots level. In working with partners such as the Music Venue Trust, we estimate that about 35 per cent of venues have closed in the UK during that 10-year period. In effect, we are a third down, which is a matter of great concern.

There are many reasons why a venue might close, including licensing, business rates and changes to business. However, over the years, we have noticed a trend of planning issues becoming a concern. Whether through the rise of gentrification in certain areas or new developments taking place, planning disputes and the associated costs can threaten a venue’s existence.

In recent years, we have campaigned for the agent of change principle, which derives from Australian law. In Australia, they originally had success in achieving that principle. In effect, the principle puts an onus on those coming into an area, including new businesses, to take responsibility for their impact. It also puts an onus on what is sometimes termed, I think, the right to first occupancy.

We hope to get to a strong and robust position. We have made substantial progress in England and Wales and we were delighted by the Scottish Government’s announcement about 10 days ago of its commitment to change the Scottish planning framework and policy documents in this regard. That said, there are areas in which it could perhaps go further with the agent of change principle and planning law could be strengthened by going into even greater detail. Perhaps we can come on to that. I hope that my initial remarks are helpful to the committee.

Beverley Whitrick (Music Venue Trust)

In contrast to UK Music, Music Venue Trust is a small and extremely focused organisation. We are a charity whose specific aim is to work with what we term grass-roots music venues. By that, we mean venues whose core purpose is to put on live music with the intention of developing new artists and connecting them with audiences. We are not talking about places that have music as an add-on to other business models such as selling alcohol or food; we are talking about those venues whose reason for being is that they believe in music, and want to share music and develop new artists.

We see grass-roots music venues as the research and development department of the UK music industry and therefore believe that their sustained operation is incredibly important to the whole music industry and its social, cultural and economic value. We are delighted that that has already been registered in the letter from the planning minister and that the Scottish Government recognises it.

I will bring in other members in a second. I know that you cannot speak about live planning applications but can you just give us an idea of their impact? You say that King Tut’s has been subject to three planning applications. What does that mean for that venue? I am unclear about that.

Beverley Whitrick

Within our network, we have tried to promote a model where, if venues become aware of planning around them, they immediately try to find out more information about it and notify our emergency response service so that we can assess whether, if those developments go ahead, they are likely to lead to noise complaints in the future.

In the instance of King Tut’s, it is similar to what happened in the case of Womanby Street in Cardiff; the developments are largely residential—I believe that there was a hotel as well. The concern when there are proposals to develop residential accommodation or accommodation where people will be living or staying overnight is that, in an area where previously the other activity was in the daytime and the venue was one of the only places where things were happening at night, is finding the balance between differing needs in a night-time economy.

Across the whole of the UK, we have seen many instances of music venues that thrived in a particular area of town because it was mostly offices and people left at 5.30 pm. As residential accommodation is created in those areas, the nature of the area changes and you get a conflict because people like the vibrancy of the area but want it to be quiet in their home. Obviously, we all understand that because people have a right to good-quality housing, but if you move to an area that has a night-time economy—which goes back to the zoning issue that Tom Kiehl mentioned—we believe that some sort of balance needs to be sought between enabling the continuation of a night-time economy and cultural activity and good, well-built housing.

The Convener

Thank you—that is helpful. A number of members want to come in. Perhaps they will all confirm or otherwise whether they have been to King Tut’s. I can confirm that I remember going in on several occasions but I do not always remember leaving.

Jenny Gilruth

I, too, have visited King Tut’s—

Alexander Stewart

Do you remember leaving?

Jenny Gilruth

I do remember leaving, yes. I think that I was asked for ID at the time, so that is how long ago it was.

I would like to drill down a wee bit on Graham Simpson’s point, because he spoke about the cultural significance argument that Beverley Whitrick has made concerning grass-roots music venues. Beverley talked about that designation in practice and, in response to Graham’s question, linked it to the Theatres Trust, which has a statutory right to comment on planning applications because theatres are designated as areas of cultural significance. Are there any other benefits that might stem from applying the same rule to grass-roots music venues? Is there any other action that the Government needs to take to protect and promote grass-roots music venues?

Beverley Whitrick

That is a huge question. At the heart of our work is the recognition that we seek of the cultural, social and economic status of the grass-roots music venues rather than seeing them as profit-making businesses. We think that it could bring many benefits over time. Obviously this moves into areas beyond planning, but it is to do with the whole way in which they are perceived and therefore protected.

There are very few instances of people moving near a theatre and complaining about the noise. There is one instance—somebody has just moved in behind a west end theatre and is apparently shocked that there is a get-out in the evening and there is noise behind the theatre. However, that is the only example that I know of, whereas across the country, there are so many complaints from people who move near a music venue and then say, “People leave late at night,” or, “I can sometimes hear music.” For some reason, music venues are perceived as being okay to complain about, in a way that does not often happen for more recognised cultural venues, such as concert halls, opera houses or theatres. We seek a repositioning in terms of practical things, such as which bit of planning legislation applies, but also the more general cultural issue across the UK.

Andy Wightman

We have the letter from the chief planner to planning authorities and the planning minister’s statement of intent about incorporating the agent of change principle into the national planning framework in future. That framework belongs to ministers and we get very limited scrutiny of it. Scottish planning policy also belongs to ministers and they can change it or break a promise—for example, we might have a different Government that does not implement it when the next national planning framework comes along.

We are keen to hear whether that is sufficient and deals with the question of introducing the agent of change principle, bearing in mind that every application is dealt with on its own merits and on the circumstances and facts of the case. Therefore, nothing is guaranteed. If it is not sufficient, what could we put in the bill? Primary legislation does not normally deal with such questions, because it deals with process. Ultimately, the decision maker makes the decision.

Beverley Whitrick mentioned use classes. I am looking at the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, and there is nothing in it on music venues. Is that an issue that needs to be addressed?

Beverley Whitrick

I know that Tom Kiehl has something to say. We have had many discussions with Governments in the various bits of the UK on that question. When policy is created for cultural venues, people say that they knew that it was intended that grass-roots music venues would be covered, but the space between what is intended by the person who wrote the policy and how it might be interpreted at local authority level is proving a real issue for our venues. It might have been intended that music venues would be seen as cultural venues, but if someone in the local authority does not perceive a particular venue as that, they can say that a cultural venue is a theatre, not a grass-roots music venue. It was great that the minister’s letter specifically mentioned music venues and spoke about protecting them and recognising their cultural importance. We would like to see more of such specification, because it is explicit and does not leave room for interpretation.

I will give an example of the interpretation issue in England. A local authority strongly supported a music venue—the Fleece, in Bristol—that was subject to redevelopment. The council told the developer, which was converting an office block next to it, to have non-openable windows on the side of the building that overlooked the venue. That was agreed, but the developer then went to the Planning Inspectorate—I know that Scotland does not have a planning inspectorate, but the mechanism is similar—and said that it did not have to do that, by point of law, as it was a council recommendation rather than a legislative requirement. The Planning Inspectorate agreed with the developer’s lawyer, overturned the council’s decree and had it pay the expenses. Bristol City Council is now wary of supporting venues, and six venues in Bristol are currently endangered by development. A board member who is a barrister says that the issue is to do with the grey area between policy and legislation, where it is known what is intended but there is wiggle room. A developer that has determination and money can often find that space and say that it does not really have to do what was intended.

12:30

Andy Wightman

Beverley Whitrick

When the Music Venue Trust first started talking about the agent of change principle in 2015, we were approached by a glorious array of different businesses and people who, first, could not believe that it was not already the law of the land, given how logical it seems, and, secondly, said, “This is brilliant, because it would stop the silly thing that happened to me from happening.”

I can give you a couple of examples of the sorts of things that have come up. A housing development was built very near to a speedway track in England, with a street called Speedway Close. People bought the houses and moved in, and they immediately started complaining to the local council that they were being disturbed by the noise from the speedway track.

The Convener

Maybe they had no idea that there was a speedway track there. [Laughter.]

Beverley Whitrick

We also heard about a couple who moved to a countryside village and immediately put in a complaint to the local council that the church bells were disturbing their peace. We are absolutely delighted that the minister has specifically referenced music venues in the agent of change principle, but any policy or legislation in that respect could have ramifications with regard to other applications and might help people who have something that already exists and are being questioned by somebody who has just moved in and has said, “I don’t like that.”

Tom Kiehl

To build on what Beverley Whitrick has said, I think it important to recognise that, although the bill concerns planning, there is a crossover with the licensing system. We cannot forget about that, because the planning and licensing processes should be more joined up. In some ways, decisions are made at a planning level and there is a need to pre-empt the licensing challenges that might come up further down the line.

In fact, a recommendation that emerged from the House of Lords’s long-standing inquiry into licensing in general in the previous Parliament was for more planning and licensing committees to be brought forward and for those decision-making processes to take place much more in tandem. If that comes within the bill’s scope, it might be a positive move to look at how that sort of thing can be developed to help with some of the issues that we are concerned about. I understand that the bill is purely about planning, but there might be issues around that that you might want to consider.

The Convener

It is good to get that on the record.

Alexander Stewart

My point is similar to the one that Tom Kiehl has just made, and it is about the practicalities of ensuring that planning and licensing are more aligned. You have identified the possibility of bringing committees together. What other practical processes should be identified to try to alleviate some of the difficulties that have come up in other locations?

Tom Kiehl

We have been talking more generally about how the music industry can work more collaboratively with local authorities and with planners, and I would note the success that we have had in London, with a music board being set up to bring a lot of these issues together. There is a question about the extent to which you can deal with some of these problems offline. How can you create structures that enable the music industry to have frank discussions with planners and licensing people, whom they do not necessarily talk to, and how can that be developed further? It would be positive if that was developed in Scotland too, particularly in some of the large urban areas such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, which have well-developed music industries, in order to create the forums that would enable some of those discussions to take place. You would not have to get into legal or legislative problems, because you could head things off earlier.

Beverley Whitrick

A few years ago, I did a piece of work for the City of Edinburgh Council on the inaudibility clause that involved quite a lot of discussions about how a complaint to the council was handled. One of the things that struck me particularly forcibly was that the complainant was always considered to be the council’s client and the noise maker was therefore the defendant. I stated in that piece of work that it was almost as if the council had already decided who the guilty party was, just by the way in which it handled the complaint. I believe that there is a lot of room for reinforcing recommendations made through planning with regard to the way in which councils deal with any noise complaints that might come up afterwards. It is not very helpful if you do not view it objectively, or if you say, “Well, that person complained, so they must be right.”

Monica Lennon

Most of the key points have been covered, but there are a couple of things that I would like to ask about. Tom Kiehl mentioned Australia in his opening remarks. The approach there is to enshrine the agent of change principle into law, and it would be good to get more information on how that has been going. As far as the practical nuts and bolts are concerned, I know that we cannot talk about individual planning applications here today, but I wonder what the experience has been of venues that have had to make representations, buy in expert advice or undertake their own noise impact assessments. What is the practical side of that, and what are the costs involved?

We have touched on the synergy between licensing and planning. In Scotland, councillors who sit on licensing boards have to undergo training and sit a test, and the bill proposes that a similar test should be taken by people who sit on planning committees. Do you have a view on that?

Earlier this morning, we spent a lot of time talking about rights of appeal. The venues that you represent have been extremely involved in the planning process. Do you think that they would have a view on whether they should have a right to appeal when a decision does not go their way?

12:45

Beverley Whitrick

I will do my best to comment from the point of view of music venues. Obviously, it is disappointing that our venue representatives were not able to join us today, but I will tell you what I know from the Music Venue Trust’s side of things.

The main thing to say is that letters from a local council are extremely scary to most people who own a music venue. If they receive one, whether it is a noise complaint or a notification of planning nearby, the first thing that they are likely to do is panic, because they already have a full-time job running the venue and doing other things and, when asked to confront an extra challenge, they often feel very unprepared for that and that they do not have the time to cope with it. The Music Venue Trust offers an emergency response service. Any music venue within our music venues alliance network across the country can ask us for expert advice. We have a number of what we call gurus—our planning, licensing and legal experts—who support people with advice. Obviously, however, that can go only so far, so there is a cost implication if it takes a long time to handle the case against a planning application.

The other thing to say is that there are issues around multiple developments. In the case of King Tut’s, for example, there have been three developments in a five-month period. That represents a huge extra time burden as well as a potential financial burden for a business that is quite poorly resourced anyway. A lot of our venues are run by extremely small teams, so the person who has to get their head around the planning policy, figure out what they have to do to respond, talk to the lawyers and so on is probably also the person who is cleaning the toilets, rolling in the beer barrels and welcoming the band. It is a huge challenge for a small business to deal with an extra factor on top of what they already do. Although we try to offer support, we are also a small organisation and we are stretched with regard to the resources that we can offer.

The situation is better than it was a few years ago but it is still extremely challenging for the sector to try to cope with those external factors, which can have a big impact on their day-to-day existence.

Monica Lennon

With regard to the situation in Australia, have venues there reported that some of the uncertainty and burden that Beverley Whitrick described has lessened?

Tom Kiehl

I understand that the Australian situation has worked quite well, although the people there are having slight issues with the fact that a geographical limit is applied to their version of the agent of change principle—I am not sure what the radius is, but the rules can apply only within a certain distance. That causes some problems because, when you are dealing with noise, it is often hard to determine exactly how far sound might travel and what impact that noise might have on other areas. I know that attempts are being made to improve that so that the approach is more about the vicinity rather than about putting in place a jurisdiction within which the principle would apply.

On the point about training, it would be important for that to take place. The more that can be done to ensure that those who are working within planning institutions understand the various aspects fully, the better.

Monica Lennon

It is useful to get an overview of what is happening throughout the UK. It would be good if the bill could result in Scotland’s approach leading the UK. Is there another opportunity, perhaps through building regulations or building standards, to make progress in that regard? For example, if a developer knew that there were certain minimum requirements in terms of retrofitting buildings or constructing new buildings, would that give us an opportunity to tackle some of the issues? If such requirements are codified in the building regulations, would that negate the requirement to deal with issues in planning legislation?

Tom Kiehl

I would have to look into that in more detail before giving a specific commitment. However, the more tools that are available to Government to achieve the aims, the better.

Beverley Whitrick

I would just add that Scotland is already leading the way as a result of the letter that the minister issued to local authorities. Having such a strongly worded message directed at local authorities has not happened anywhere else in the UK. Scotland is already at the forefront.

Monica Lennon

Excellent; that is what we like to hear.

The Convener

That is a lovely way to end this evidence session—please capture that, everyone.

I thank you both for giving evidence. Obviously, the weather defeated our attempts to hear from other witnesses, but we are grateful to them for their willingness to make themselves available. We are also grateful to both of you for your willingness to wait for a significant period of time before giving us your evidence. Thanks again—please continue to follow the committee’s work on this matter.

28 February 2018

Second meeting transcript

The Convener (Bob Doris)

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the eighth meeting in 2018 of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, members may use tablets during the meeting. We have an apology from Jenny Gilruth MSP, who is a committee member. Unfortunately, she cannot be with us.

Under agenda item 1, we will take evidence from two panels on the Planning (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. It gives me pleasure to introduce our first panel. Tammy Swift-Adams is director of planning at Homes for Scotland; Jenny Hogan is deputy chief executive at Scottish Renewables; Gordon Nelson is director of the Federation of Master Builders Scotland; Sarah Boyack is head of public affairs at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations; and Jonathan Fair is regional managing director, Scotland, at McCarthy and Stone. I thank everyone for coming to the meeting.

I understand that there will be opening statements before we go to questions. I ask Jenny Hogan to start.

Jenny Hogan (Scottish Renewables)

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee today.

Scottish Renewables is the voice of Scotland’s renewable energy industry. It represents more than 270 organisations, including developers and installers, as well as community organisations and companies right through the supply chain. Many of our members are developing projects across a range of scales, from district heating schemes to wind farms, and from hydro power projects to solar panels. Those businesses and communities are helping to deliver the Scottish Government’s target, which all the major parties support, to meet half of all our heat, power and transport needs from renewables by 2030. Those ambitions are extremely challenging and require a joined-up approach across all levels of government and its agencies.

Although we welcome many of the bill’s provisions, we believe that some of the proposals would have unintended consequences for our sector and, as a result, many of the Scottish Government’s national outcomes.

More specifically, I will summarise a few of our recommendations. We recommend that the bill be designed to enable the national outcomes to be achieved within the necessary timescales while minimising costs; that sustainable development should be an explicit purpose of the bill to make it clear that the delivery of the climate change plan, the future climate change act and the energy strategy will be facilitated; that the process for reviewing plans and policies must be able to reflect rapid changes in technology and policy—that is particularly pertinent for energy and carbon reduction; and that the planning system should not be viewed simply as a service for developers but also as a service for the public good that must balance a range of interests, and that it should therefore be resourced by both the public and private sectors.

We also recommend that consideration be given to introducing a new consultee tasked with advising on the socioeconomic impact of applications, to provide balance to those who assess other impacts—for example, the economic development department of the local authority; and that complex applications that require an environmental impact assessment be treated as major projects and not determined under delegated powers, or, at least, given that option. We support the independent planning review recommendations and those of a number of stakeholders who have argued that front loading community involvement is the most effective way to empower people in the process, as opposed to reforms to appeals.

We agree with Community Land Scotland, the Scottish Crofting Federation and others that areas of Scotland that are currently mapped and identified as wild land areas should be balanced with socioeconomic opportunities for Scotland’s rural land, whether that be for crofting, woodlands, renewable energy generation or other opportunities for income.

Tammy Swift-Adams (Homes for Scotland)

Homes for Scotland is the voice of the home-building industry. We have more than 200 members, including home builders that are responsible for around 95 per cent of the new homes that are built in Scotland each year.

As director of planning, I hear from my members on a wide range of issues. Planning is not their only challenge, but it is one of the biggest ones.

The need to deliver more homes sparked the planning review in September 2015. Two and a half years later, we are no further forward in housing delivery. We need to build more homes. Homes for Scotland has scrutinised the proposals in the bill and the wider planning review through that lens. However, we are not blind to the other ambitions behind the bill, and we are aware of the many balancing acts that the system faces.

The bill provides a rare and crucial opportunity to help the planning system to fulfil its potential in delivering new homes and other development that Scotland needs. If we can get planning reform right, good performance should be the norm, and communities and home builders alike should have better trust in the process that shapes our country’s development.

We strongly support the focus of the planning review on making planning more collaborative rather than introducing more opportunities for conflict. We think that the bill should acknowledge that collaboration more than it currently does.

More broadly, the bill could be strengthened through changes to what is proposed on development planning, the infrastructure levy, performance and fees. It is important to maintain the strong relationship between the different components of the development plan, for example.

Finally, we are concerned that the bill and its accompanying financial memorandum overlook the fact that, to properly resource planning services and infrastructure delivery, it will be necessary to look beyond the development community and the planning system. The changes that we suggested in our written evidence are intended to ensure that the bill achieves its intended objectives without leaving important details to chance.

Gordon Nelson (Federation of Master Builders Scotland)

Thank you for the invitation to give evidence.

The Federation of Master Builders, which has more than 8,000 members, is the largest trade association in the United Kingdom construction industry, and we are recognised as the voice of small and medium-sized construction firms. Our house-building members build on small sites, typically of fewer than 30 units. Our consultation response is based on their experiences and views as small house-building firms across Scotland.

Sarah Boyack (Scottish Federation of Housing Associations)

The SFHA represents housing associations and co-operatives across Scotland.

An effective planning system is critical for our members to take forward their proposals to provide affordable warm homes, meet people’s needs and deliver socially inclusive communities. Recent research that we produced with Shelter shows that our members are making a key contribution to achieving the Scottish Government’s target of 50,000 affordable homes and that they are tackling inequalities and delivering socially inclusive communities at the same time. However, there must be an approach that ensures that housing meets people’s needs now and in the future.

Our research highlighted the need to ensure that housing is accessible, is affordable and is where people need it throughout the country. Therefore, our ambitions for the Planning (Scotland) Bill are that there be a stronger link between the range of housing needs that need to be met and the planning process; that affordable land be made available where it is needed to meet those housing needs; and that infrastructure be planned and provided to enable high-quality housing developments in communities.

The bill provides an opportunity to address issues around land supply and cost. That is critical, because one of the motivators behind the bill is that not enough housing is being delivered in Scotland. The bill makes provision for an infrastructure levy, but we want land to be transferred at existing use value so that the uplift in value that is gained through planning permission for housing can be used to fund the infrastructure that is needed to service those sites.

It is also important that the planning system be resourced to implement the ambitions that are in the bill so that housing associations and co-operatives can ensure collaborative developments with front-loaded consultation; deliver the place making that people want in their communities to provide high-quality places in which to live with active travel and green spaces; and meet the Scottish Government’s wider range of objectives.

Jonathan Fair (McCarthy and Stone)

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

This is a particularly opportune time for the evidence session to take place. Over the past 10 years, there has been a great deal of discussion about meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged in society and also about first-time buyers, or generation rent. Unfortunately, there has not been the same level of discussion about meeting the needs of generation stuck—the last-time buyers who want to get on the final rung of the housing ladder.

Last Tuesday, Angela Constance, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities, said when addressing the Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland conference that innovative approaches were needed to meet the housing challenges of Scotland’s ageing population. She said that there was a need to take action to address the needs of our ageing population to ensure that more suitable housing and services were put in place to help individuals to continue to live independently and at home.

Changes to Scottish planning policy in 2014 were certainly a step in the right direction but, unfortunately, there is little evidence so far that those changes have delivered on the original aims. It is clear that, if Scotland is to make any real progress in the provision of appropriate retirement housing, much more needs to be done. Although the independent planning review highlighted the need to address the housing needs of the ageing population, there is, unfortunately, no mention in the bill of housing for the elderly as a policy priority or target.

In our discussions, I hope to make a number of suggestions on how the Planning (Scotland) Bill can make a step change to ease the way for a significant increase in retirement housing that will help to achieve the objectives that the communities secretary set out last week and the objectives for savings to the health and social care budgets that the Scottish Government in general has set out. Most importantly, I hope to suggest how it can provide an appropriate range of housing options for older people in Scotland.

The Convener

I thank all our witnesses for those opening statements.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

I thank the witnesses for attending. Apart from Ms Hogan, they represent the house-building sector. A couple of them mentioned that an ambition behind the bill was to deliver more housing. I must admit that I do not see that in the bill. Do the witnesses see it and, if they do not, what should change? In other words, will the bill deliver more housing?

Tammy Swift-Adams

We said in our written submission that there is nothing significant in the bill that specifically refers to housing or is specifically designed to increase the delivery of new housing. However, if we look at the policy memorandum, which outlines the Government’s vision of how planning will be done in future—which will be delivered partly through the bill and partly through other means—it is clear that, for planning to be successful, it needs to deliver more homes.

09:15

In our written submission, we have made a number of suggestions—which we can work up into amendments—about how the bill could do more to make planning a better enabler of new homes. They include strengthening the relationship between local development plans and the national planning framework to make sure that local development plans bring forward the homes that are needed in local areas. We also suggest filling in the gaps in the bill at the moment, including in relation to the clear need for better collaboration with the development industry, and with communities at large, at the early stage of plan preparation. In the policy memorandum, there is a clear reliance on that collaboration in order for planning to work, in terms of both delivery and community trust. At the moment, the bill does not acknowledge that collaboration or ensure that it happens.

Sarah Boyack

We have suggested that we look at housing need across the country and then ensure that that housing need is met in every part of the country. We need national targets, which need to feed through to regional work. That then needs to feed through into local development plans. If the suggestion is 10-year development plans, with an emphasis on implementation, delivery and collaboration, and with a properly resourced planning system, developers will be able to work through that system, whether they are delivering social rented properties or a range of housing choices across the country.

One of the key things that we found in our strategic housing investment plans research was that there is not that link between where housing need is and where housing is being built. That is partly because of the cost of infrastructure, but a critical issue is the cost of land. We suggested that that is one of the issues that need to be looked at in the bill. The Scottish Land Commission has done work and is looking at a range of options. We think that that debate needs to filter into the bill. The issue needs to be reflected in headline statements in the bill, or to follow in the regulations and secondary legislation that come afterwards.

The comment that Tammy Swift-Adams made about collaborative work is really important. Developments such as those relating to Glasgow’s Commonwealth games involved incredibly complex sites. There were issues about remediation—improving the quality of the land before anything was built. There were a mixed range of developments, including low-carbon developments. Those developments were able to happen because the local authority was able to work collaboratively with a series of developers, including registered social landlords.

At every stage, it is crucial that we ensure that there are targets, that there is affordable land and that there is collaborative delivery on the ground.

Gordon Nelson

I echo some of those comments. The bill, in itself, will not bring about the delivery of new homes, but there is an aspiration in the policy memorandum, which was referred to earlier, to close the gap between planning consent and the delivery of new homes. The secondary legislation and guidance that come with the bill could help speed up the delivery of new homes in the right areas. The front-loading approach should enable better engagement between small local house builders and communities, so that there is the right development in the right area at the right time.

The aspirations of the bill are certainly there. However, there are significant barriers beyond the nature of the legislation. The price and the availability of land have been mentioned. For many of our house-builder members, a major barrier to entry is a lack of access to affordable development finance, which prevents many aspiring small home builders from entering the house-building market. Scotland desperately needs more diversity of housing supply and more entrants into the house-building industry.

Jonathan Fair

I echo much of what has already been said, but I would particularly like to highlight a couple of things. For the bill to be effective in driving improved housing delivery, it needs to include measures and ways to improve the speed of the process. As a result, the bill should ensure that the people who invest in housing delivery in Scotland have confidence that their investment will come to legitimate fruition. Whatever measures are included in the bill should focus on those issues.

Graham Simpson

I think that we all agree that there is nothing in the bill that would deliver more of anything. It does not seem to have any ambitions on anything, but certainly not on housing. Could you be a bit more specific? We are looking at potential amendments to the bill. Are there any that you would suggest?

A couple of you mentioned having national house-building targets. In her written evidence, Tammy Swift-Adams suggested a more robust methodology, and Sarah Boyack mentioned that as well. Should we say something in the bill about a methodology for setting out what targets would be so that they would flow down to local levels?

Jonathan Fair

We need to set clear national targets for house building across the sector, and for housing for older people in particular. It would be particularly important to have that differentiation between different appropriate uses. Monitoring that delivery through yearly statements and by including appropriate policies in support of that aim in the bill—for example, in national planning framework 2—would be the right way to go to ensure that more housing is provided and that the delivery of that is monitored over time.

Tammy Swift-Adams

There is definitely a need for a clear methodology for developing a housing supply target and monitoring how likely it is to be delivered or how successfully it is being delivered. I would not necessarily argue for having the full detail of the methodology in the bill but there needs to be something more in the bill for that to hang from.

If the bill was going to say anything specific on home building, it would be a recognition that it is an important development in the national interest and that the NPF must include clear targets on house building if it is to be successful. Some of the other specific amendments that we suggest to support that would be to ensure that local development plans comply with the NPF where it sets house-building targets and to ensure that there is early collaboration with home builders among others when those plans are put together to ensure that they are more deliverable than the plans and sets of site allocations that are in plans at the moment.

I should have mentioned earlier that there is no mention of a local development plan review being triggered in the event of a shortfall in the housing supply arising. It is easy to envisage that happening because it happens now. You would think that it would be a logical trigger for a plan review but, at the moment, there is nothing in the bill that requires local authorities to review their plans if there is a shortfall.

Gordon Nelson

There should be more in the bill to enable local authorities to give more strategic consideration to small sites within local development plans.

One thing that encourages colleagues of mine in England about the Westminster housing white paper is its stronger focus on small sites and speed of delivery. It proposes that 10 per cent of housing allocations be small sites—half a hectare or less. It seems that there are more specific details on smaller sites for local authorities’ plans in the white paper, which is encouraging.

It is to be debated whether more detail should be specified in the Planning (Scotland) Bill or be put in guidance and secondary legislation, but an emphasis on specifying smaller sites in local authorities’ plans should encourage more small house builders.

Sarah Boyack

I am thinking particularly about making the connection between identifying housing needs and feeding that through into the planning system. Local authorities work on their SHIPs and undertake work on housing needs demand analysis, but that needs to be fed proactively into the planning system, and we need to ask where the sites are that will deliver that range of needs. We need to join the dots between the various levels of planning—between the national and regional levels and delivery in the local plans.

According to recent statistics, there are something like 10,000 people with disabilities on council waiting lists, 35,000 people with homelessness applications and more than 162,000 people on local authority waiting lists. We have people saying that they want access to land. There are also the issues that have been mentioned about “generation rent”—people who want to buy their first home. How do we meet those needs? We know where they are, so we need to feed that through into the planning system. That is why land is crucial: we need affordable land to provide a range of different house types for different needs.

Older people have been mentioned; for them the issue is accessible house design, as well as the number of house types that we design. There should be a range of choices for older people and people who need accessible homes throughout their lives.

There must be a focus on the quality as well as the numbers and we must dig down into communities to find out what the range of need is.

Graham Simpson

Three witnesses have mentioned the need for more variety of homes and for smaller sites. Sarah Boyack mentioned the land value uplift model, which could provide one way to deliver smaller sites. What are your views on that? We will ask later about the infrastructure levy, so you do not need to talk about that. How could we provide more variety and allow smaller house builders to get a foot in the door?

Sarah Boyack

There are more examples from the huge set of Commonwealth games sites, which involved a range of developers. One issue is the role of local authorities in bringing land forward. When local authorities and registered social landlords work in partnership, that can be successful in delivering land—local authorities provide access to land and RSLs build high-quality developments after consultation. A more collaborative approach to providing land is one way to achieve that. It does not necessarily have to involve one or two small sites; different builders can be involved in the process for parts of sites.

I return to the point that having 10-year development plans provides the opportunity to focus on implementing those plans. Producing longer-term plans is not a money-saving exercise, because the focus must be on delivery. That is one of the bill’s big aspirations that we want to be delivered.

Jonathan Fair

Local development plans are critical to housing that meets older people’s needs. Developments to meet those needs are typically in central brownfield locations; smaller sites prevail and they tend to be close to shops, services and transport links. Local development plans containing clear guidance and an intention to identify and protect suitable sites of that kind, and there being a presumption in favour of giving consent to specialist retirement housing that is tenure blind—it might include sheltered housing or extra-care accommodation—would be a means to encourage, protect and secure such precious small sites for future development.

The Convener

To get through all the questions on the bill, we will have to move on in a wee second, but I will bring in Gordon Nelson.

Gordon Nelson

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I want to pick up on Sarah Boyack’s point about strategic housing investment plans and housing need and demand assessments. It sounds as though a lot of work is done at local authority level to map out local housing needs. That is done separately from the local development plan process. We are now looking at the national planning framework as being the answer when it comes to providing a national picture of what our housing need is, and there will no longer be strategic development plans.

Do we have the right tools and the right data? Is the problem the fact that the approach is not joined up enough? If so, could the bill address that? Is something else missing?

Sarah Boyack

You are right that the lack of a joined-up approach is part of the problem. If we look at our statistics on housing for older people, we are not automatically taken to one type of provision, but we need that issue to be addressed in all our rural communities. There are different ways in which that can be done.

It is about whether it will be explicit that different housing needs will be met in communities, because merely identifying numbers at national level does not achieve local delivery. That is why feeding through into local plans is crucial, as is making the process absolutely explicit, as Monica Lennon suggested, so that housing need and demand are identified at community level and fed through into the local development plan process and, crucially, so that sites are identified.

However, that will not solve everything. For example, there might be social security or welfare issues that need to be addressed in residential housing for older people with regard to care that needs to be provided. However, the physical infrastructure—or, at least, having that ambition throughout our communities—is not explicit in the system at the moment.

Monica Lennon

Leaving aside delivery and identifying sites, because we will come on to that, are we doing a good enough job to identify need? Do we have the right data and numbers, or is the picture still unclear?

Tammy Swift-Adams

A lot of people have questions about the methodology for housing need and demand assessments. There is no current consultation on that, but I hope that the Government will be open to amending that situation in order to support the work of the bill. I was advised recently that one of the shortcomings in the housing need and demand assessment is that it does not take into account hidden households that might want or need a home. Currently, for example, young couples who live with parents do not show up in statistics. There are definitely shortcomings in assessment.

The Convener

Just for the record, I will tell you that the committee does an annual trawl through the SHIPs that are returned to the Scottish Government. I am just checking with the clerking team that we still have that ahead of us. The SHIPs appear around Christmas time, the Government analyses them and we follow up on that. The committee is certainly alert to them.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I will move on to strategic development plans and the national planning framework.

There are significant proposals in the bill to get rid of strategic development plans and to put in place what appears to be a voluntary approach and new measures by amending the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 with proposed new section 3AA, which would give powers to ministers to direct that information be provided for the national planning framework. What are your views on the abolition of strategic development plans? We will hear evidence in the next panel from Clydeplan, which in its written evidence cited the Scottish Government’s research in 2014 that said that strategic development plans have yet to bed in and still have a role to play. We will have to take a view on the question of strategic development plans; that seems to be quite important.

My second question is on the national planning framework, because it is very much linked to strategic development plans. Is it right that ministers should be able to draw up the national planning framework and include things such as housing, which has traditionally been an issue for local councils to resolve?

Jenny Hogan

We broadly support the proposals on strategic development plans. On regional partnerships, which are linked to that, we feel that having more information on how they might be resourced would be useful. It would be desirable for secondary legislation to provide for regional planners a clear steer on the Scottish Government’s national priorities.

We agree that there should be a role for ministers and central Government in order to ensure that things that are strategically and nationally important are in the national planning framework.

Perhaps linked to some of what has been said about housing are district heating networks and low-carbon heating systems, which exist in some places and are extremely important for meeting our climate change plan and energy strategy. There needs to be a clear link between national policy and what ends up in local development plans.

Tammy Swift-Adams

If so, the Conservatives could, for example, allow fracking in the national planning framework, against the will of Parliament. Do you think that there needs to be stronger democratic oversight of the national planning framework?

The Convener

Everyone has taken a deep breath following Mr Wightman’s comment, which might be called, at best, blue-sky thinking.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

I would call it a nightmare scenario.

The Convener

Let us try and stay focused. Are there any comments on that?

Monica Lennon

We are too shocked.

The Convener

We will have a couple of supplementary questions on strategic planning, because we have a lot of other stuff to get through.

Monica Lennon

I remind the committee that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Andy Wightman was exploring an interesting line of questioning on whether regional planning will happen if we accept that regional planning is a good thing but there is no duty to do it. I am thinking about evidence that Craig McLaren from RTPI Scotland gave last week to the Finance and Constitution Committee on the financial memorandum. He said:

“we are heading towards a crisis in resourcing the planning system.”——[Official Report, Finance and Constitution Committee, 28 February 2018; c 3.]

We have heard a lot about how difficult it is for local authorities to fulfil their statutory duties. If there is no statutory duty on regional planning or spatial planning at that level, how likely is it that local authorities will come together and voluntarily or enthusiastically put some resource into regional planning? I would like to hear from Tammy Swift-Adams first and then I am happy to hear from others.

Tammy Swift-Adams

If you do not put resources into something, it makes it more difficult to do. There are clear and detailed statutory duties on local authorities in certain areas to form an authority and produce a strategic development plan. That is where resource has been put into regional planning, but it has not produced positive results for those regions, including in the delivery of housing.

I understand the desire not to simply replace one process-heavy set of duties with another set, but rather to look at how local authorities can achieve more if they are able to design their own approaches to regional planning, but Ms Lennon is right that, based on the traditional approach to the financial memorandum and in resource-stretched times, there is a risk that local authorities will not direct a significant amount of resource to that. There could be an option for the Scottish Government to put specific funding into new aspects of planning reform—that needs to happen for regional and collaborative planning, local place plans and all sorts of things that the Government is relying on people doing in order to make the planning system work.

Based on how financial memorandums work at the moment, if there is no duty to do something, it will not get costed and it will not get resourced. However, I do not think that imposing a duty that, as with SDPs, will not work is the right way of resolving that issue.

Monica Lennon

In its written evidence, Scottish Renewables talked about regional partnerships but questioned the resources for them. Tammy Swift-Adams suggested that the Scottish Government fund them. How realistic is that suggestion? Could something be done through the bill to ensure that people work together at regional level?

Jenny Hogan

To keep it brief, I will just agree with Tammy Swift-Adams. We do not want to put too much in the bill, only to create, in effect, the same issues that we have had with strategic development plans. We have suggested that secondary legislation is the place to provide a clearer steer. I do not have anything else to add to what has been said.

The Convener

That is helpful.

If there is a duty to co-operate on strategic planning, local authorities and stakeholders could just say, “We fulfilled our duty by meeting other local authorities, so although we could not find common ground, we met our obligation.” Will the inclusion of a duty drive regional co-operation and make it happen? There is currently an obligation in that regard, but it does not seem to have worked. Will the duty drive the change that people are looking for? We will put the same question to Clydeplan and other witnesses on the next panel.

Please do not feel obliged to answer. We can let the tumbleweed move on.

Tammy Swift-Adams

In England, a duty to co-operate has replaced the regional plans. It does not require people to agree with one another. Local authorities might have a meeting to talk about a subject and, by doing that, they have fulfilled their duty; the existence of the duty does not achieve anything more than that in practice.

Jonathan Fair

Behind that is the issue of resourcing, which was mentioned. We can have a duty, but if the resources to implement the duty fully are not there or if the will to do so is not there, all those principles will fail.

We have similar concerns in the context of local place plans. Local place plans are an excellent concept, but if communities do not have the resources or the ability to engage fully with the process, they will likely just slow down the LPP process.

The Convener

That was a perfect segue into the next line of questioning—it is as if you knew what was coming. I note that Monica Lennon, our deputy convener, pursued the issue of resources quite effectively; the issue will not be missed by the committee.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

It would be good to get the panel’s views on the extent to which the introduction of local place plans into the Scottish planning system will enable communities to influence local development planning.

The Convener

No one seems desperate to answer. Will someone make eye contact with me?

Sarah Boyack

We need resourcing and we need to work out where the priorities are. Our members do a lot of work with communities to add value, not just by building houses but by thinking about wider community engagement and community development. The language around the bill—up-front planning, collaboration and so on—is good, but all that has to be paid for.

Our members say that getting through the planning process is taking longer and longer. Local place plans are a good thing, but there have to be resources, particularly for communities that have traditionally been excluded and whose voices have not been heard. If we want to deliver social inclusion, that has to be planned in from the start.

Jonathan Fair

Any business would legitimately want a local community to have a say in activity in its area. However, I am concerned that the time spent in developing a local place plan might delay the LDP or that the sequence in which the two plans were produced might mean that they were not aligned. That is the danger in the detail behind the principles.

The Convener

I see that this issue of the link between local place plans and development plans has inspired a lot of supplementaries. Indeed, I think that it brings us to the meat of the bill. Should there be a requirement for development plans to demonstrate how this has been taken into account and how they have been amended to include, where possible, genuine process-driven activities in support of local place plans? If local place plans are to be a material consideration in the planning process, should development plans do more than “have regard” to them? Should there be a process by which development plans must, in theory, at least be reviewed on the basis of a local place plan? That would certainly give it a bit more meat.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that? I see a lot of scribbling going on.

Jonathan Fair

If communities are to feel that their voice is being listened to, that is certainly one way of demonstrating that. It seems sensible to have a review process that is based on the content of an LPP before the LDP is finalised and signed off.

Sarah Boyack

It would provide an opportunity to bring communities into the process of planning their future and visioning what they want in that respect. The issue, then, is joining the dots to make sure that that happens. In any case, it has to be resourced to ensure that we hear the voices of those who probably have not been heard. With a front-loaded planning system, it will be important to get that sort of thing right, because that is where you want to encourage people to get involved.

The Convener

We should never assume anything when scrutinising legislation, but would it be beneficial—though not a requirement—for local place plans to be developed ahead of the local development plan? After all, if the bill is passed, a local development plan will be in place for 10 years, although there will be processes for amending it during that 10-year period. As a result, it could take account of a local place plan that was developed, say, a couple of years after it had been put in place. What, in an ideal world, would be the sequence of events? Would local place plans feed into a development plan before it was drafted? Is there any best practice that could be put in place if the bill were to be passed?

Tammy Swift-Adams

To some extent, it all depends on what the communities want to use local place plans for. If they want them to influence the local development plan, they might look at putting one in place at the right time in the process. Equally, though, they might want to use a local place plan to fill in some detail that has been missed or to pick up on a change in events that might have happened since the development plan was put in place. There is not necessarily any perfect sequencing dynamic.

The Convener

I know that there is a lot of interest from MSPs on this matter, but I want to ask one more question.

When we talked about ensuring that we met housing targets, whether that be in the social rented sector or through giving a boost to the private sector, we touched on strategic housing investment programmes, housing needs assessments and the need for development plans to take account of those things in their delivery. Should local place plans have to do the same thing? After all, there is no point in front loading a planning system if the community is going to say, “We quite like the balance of social rented housing and private housing, our green space and so on here,” and to put in place a local place plan that sets that in stone but which does not directly challenge, for example, any significant housing need that might exist. Should there be some guidance on local place plans to make it clear that they should take account of and dovetail with the national planning framework, strategic housing targets and the local development plan itself? Surely there has to be some kind of dovetailing with those national targets.

Sure. Sticking with the subject of the local place plans, we took evidence last week, we have been out engaging in communities and some of us have looked back at the evidence sessions on the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. Some of the aspirations of the previous Planning (Scotland) Bill are still embedded in the current bill, partly because communities do not feel that they have an equal place in the planning decision-making process. For those witnesses who do not support equalising rights of appeal, I can understand that a local place plan might be a remedy. However, Tammy Swift-Adams described a situation in which her members would prefer to see regard being had to local place plans rather than those being embedded in the development plan.

Could there be tension and conflict on the status of local place plans not only in the LDP process but when it comes to development management? When planning consultants come along to represent clients and start to look at all the things that have to be taken on board, are your members likely to talk down the local place plan and say, “Well, it is a material consideration” or “You must have regard to it” but then go on to say, “But, actually, the development plan says this, and it is king in this process”? In 10 years’ time, will people be saying, “Front loading didn’t work in 2006 and local place plans didn’t work in 2018, so what should we do next?”

Tammy Swift-Adams

The honest answer is that it will depend on what local communities try to do with local place plans. The Scottish Government has made it clear that it sees the plans as an opportunity for communities to come together and do something positive, but that it does not want them to undermine what the wider system is trying to do in delivering what individual communities and Scotland as a whole need.

A benefit of the flexibility of local place plans is that it gives communities a chance to come together in that way if they are properly resourced. It is right to continue with the existing flexibility and to allow people to make of it what they can, subject to the resources that are made available to them. If LPPs become a positive part of the planning landscape, there are mechanisms in place for local authorities to bring them into the local development framework. If local authorities do not work positively with communities on local planning work, they will be accountable to those communities on that basis.

I think that that is why the Scottish Government has left a lot of what is in the bill fairly loose at the moment compared with the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and the planning system traditionally. Things do not work because we have put lots of regulations and processes in place, and that has not freed up people to work together more collaboratively and collegiately. I think that there would be a bigger risk of us saying in a few years’ time that local place plans are a problem if they were very heavily regulated.

Monica Lennon

The changes in the 2006 act included a provision that there should be early engagement with communities, particularly on major planning applications. Jenny Hogan might be able to relate to that. How has industry approached that? Jonathan Fair might be able to comment on that, too. Communities now have an opportunity to engage with developers and other stakeholders before the submission of a planning application that could have a big impact on them. I understand that you have to submit a report before the application goes to the council.

Are there any aspects of industry’s approach that could be improved on in that regard? The early engagement provision was seen as the big opportunity to override the need for appeal rights to be equalised.

Jonathan Fair

I think that early community engagement and the provision of clear opportunities for communities to influence the outcome of major applications are critically important in ensuring that people feel that their voice has been heard, listened to and responded to rather than heard and ignored.

As a business, we think very highly of and have good experience of early community engagement. In every case in which we propose a project, that process of dialogue and discussion always results in changes to our proposals and in us having a much more rounded view of the local community’s views on our development. Doing that at an early stage before we submit a planning application gives us an opportunity to demonstrate in the course of the process what has changed on the back of that engagement, and that has been a good experience for us.

The only comment that I would make is that such best practice is not common practice—I do not think that everyone in the house-building sector necessarily performs to those standards.

Monica Lennon

That was an extremely helpful answer, because people who have been involved in planning know that, if community engagement is approached properly, it is a good thing for business and it cuts out many of the problems. However, we have taken evidence from people in communities who feel that it is often a tick-box exercise that companies have to do—it is just another step in the process before the planning stage. They have told us that they have no evidence that their views were taken on board, because nothing changed in the master plan. Do you recognise that?

Jenny Hogan

I agree with Jonathan Fair’s comments. Early engagement is very important for us, too. Across the development community, some developers are better at that than others. As an industry body, we very strongly encourage our members to engage early and in a good way, so that communities feel that they have been heard and listened to.

Generally speaking, I do not think that anybody likes planning by appeal. Our industry has a lot of experience in that area, too. It is costly and it does not always end up with a good or happy outcome for certain parties. Therefore, to encourage that, we strongly support front loading and approaches such as the local place plan.

Monica Lennon

A community may get involved in and put a lot of passion, time, energy and resource into developing a local place plan. However, it will reach a point at which its views are low down the pecking order, because developers and others will come along and say that the local development plan has more weight. They might thank the community for doing its local place plan, but tell it that its plan might not make that much difference. The bill has good intentions, but is there a danger that people will engage in local place planning but walk away feeling underwhelmed by it?

Jenny Hogan

You mentioned the situation almost in terms of it being the LPP versus the LDP. As we discussed in response to the previous question, it is key that the LDP is ultimately the place where the local community’s views are clearly represented. If we can make sure that the LDP is right, we can get the balance right.

The Convener

That exchange was helpful, because Monica Lennon was talking about the front loading of the system. We must see how local development plans feed into that, too. For example, the bill proposes an evidence report, and reference has been made to the gate-check process. How are those aspects of the bill beneficial to the front loading of community engagement, and where must they go further if we want front loading to be as meaningful as possible? It would be helpful to have your response on that before we move on.

The panel has been stunned into silence. Front loading is a key part of the bill, so your comments would be helpful in allowing us to cover the issue when we do our stage 1 report.

Tammy Swift-Adams

The only aspect of the bill that reflects that early engagement and gate-check collaboration is the reference to the evidence report, but the bill is completely silent on the need for that to be a product of collaboration. We referred to that major omission in our written evidence. I do not think that that is deliberate, so I hope that it will be corrected.

The Convener

That is helpful. Is there anything else that does not go far enough on engagement and which you would like to draw to our attention, even if it is not in your written evidence?

Sarah Boyack

The only issue is the need to be absolutely clear about the continued relevance of the local development plan and ensuring that a gate check is not just carried out at the start of the process, but kept up to date throughout it.

The bill needs to be explicit about the consultation processes. In looking to involve communities, we need to ensure that young people and people who are traditionally excluded are part of the development plan process, so that the emphasis is on ensuring that people’s voices are heard and listened to at the start of the process.

The Convener

That is helpful. As there are no further comments, we will move on.

Monica Lennon

Earlier on, we talked about making sure that we know what we are planning for, and housing needs was given as an example of that. We are squeezed for time, so I will try to quickly run through the infrastructure levy proposal.

We know that infrastructure is a constraint to making sure that development happens. Will the proposed infrastructure levy unlock additional development? Can we learn anything from the experience of the community infrastructure levy in England?

Tammy Swift-Adams

As time has gone on, there has been less confidence that the infrastructure levy could do that. Right from the beginning, when Homes for Scotland submitted written evidence to the independent panel, we said that we supported the principle of a levy as a replacement for section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, because that would give more clarity to developers on how much they would need to pay and when, which would be better than the situation that we have at the moment. However, the Scottish Government’s research on a levy has shown that it has a fairly limited ability to increase the funds that come through developer contributions.

A review of CIL in England has shown that CIL has not been an effective tool. That is partly because it has not amassed enough money to pay for the infrastructure that local authorities want to deliver. In addition, the responsibility for delivering a lot of the infrastructure has been taken from developers that are able to provide it and given to local authorities that are not geared up to be infrastructure providers.

10:30

A wider issue that has become clear is that, whether a levy or section 75—or a combination of them—is used to try to maximise the contribution that is made by developers, we will not get anywhere near as far as we need to get to fully fund infrastructure. There has not been any look at how to fill that gap beyond developers and the planning system. I am not sure that quite a big change—a big bit of legislation and a change in policy direction—will deliver the infrastructure that is needed. Looking at the levy is a distraction from the wider work that is needed on how to fund infrastructure beyond what can be done through development.

Sarah Boyack

I noted the comment in Craig McLaren’s evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee that there have been occasions in England when the infrastructure levy has been counterproductive because it has ruled out affordable housing. Developers have said that it is too expensive to have affordable housing on site when they pay the infrastructure levy. That is a cautionary note.

We want to see a different approach to generating money by using the uplift of land value when permission is granted to a site. It is critical to make sure that investment that is raised in an area goes to that site, so that local authorities are able to generate resource and invest it to deliver the quality that is aspired to at the site.

Jenny Hogan

As we said in our submission, the main issue is that we are not clear whether energy projects would come under a levy. Greater clarity on the intentions for the levy would be helpful to avoid confusion.

My other point is similar to that which Sarah Boyack raised. The energy industry, particularly the renewables sector, is under extreme pressure to cut costs, largely because of revenue support being reduced or removed altogether. The energy strategy is very clear that the Scottish Government’s policy is to support cutting costs as far as possible in renewable energy. Creating new fees and levies runs counter to that approach, so we raise caution on that point.

Jonathan Fair

Our business operates across the whole of the UK, and some of my colleagues have experience of CIL in England. Tammy Swift-Adams’s comments about some of its weaknesses are important. The principle of the infrastructure levy is broadly supported in the sector, but it needs to be recognised that the mechanism takes time to build up funds that can be used to pay for the infrastructure that is required. It is critically important that the funds that are raised are spent on the infrastructure that is linked to the development that has occurred or was required in the first place. The jaundiced view of CIL’s impact comes from the disconnect in timing and the investment intentions from funds that it has raised in England and Wales.

Gordon Nelson

Our view is that any such infrastructure levy should not apply to the smallest sites for houses to be built on, or the viability of building them will diminish even further and they will not come to fruition. Feedback from our house builder members in England and Wales suggests that the greater transparency and certainty that CIL was meant to deliver has not happened and that most developers see no greater certainty in CIL than they do in section 106 agreements. That is a note of caution on the experience of CIL from our house builder members in England and Wales.

Tammy Swift-Adams

We have concerns about how the policy memorandum and the financial memorandum suggest that the levy might be brought in. Initially, I think that we had all assumed that local authorities would cost the infrastructure that they needed to provide and then look at how to recoup some of that cost through development. However, it has been suggested that things could be done on a land tax basis.

More broadly, the roles of local and national Government are unclear. It has been suggested that the powers should be framed so that a local authority could choose whether to bring in a levy, how to do that, and its level. However, provisions say that the national Government could take some or all of that money and redistribute it around the country. That is quite far removed from a simple infrastructure levy to fund infrastructure development in an area. Such an approach would be more like a selective tax on some types of development in some areas to cross-subsidise things that happen elsewhere in the country. The idea of redistribution—of the national Government passing money around the country—suggests the misunderstanding that I mentioned earlier. Infrastructure cannot be fully funded from development. Edinburgh, for example, would not be able to cross-subsidise infrastructure elsewhere, because it has challenges in meeting its own needs. How the Government has elaborated on how it might use the levy raises more concerns and problems than it resolves.

Monica Lennon

I am interested to know whether there are any alternative ideas. The bill does not have the purpose of planning built into it, but we are trying to make sure that we get fantastic places, and we are all committed to place making. A panellist mentioned the role of the private sector, but this is about the public good, as well. Are we getting the balance right for investment in development? We have talked about a lack of resources in the planning system. Are we trying to do place making on the cheap?

Jonathan Fair

The problem for infrastructure investment is a combination of a lack of resources and a lack of joined-up thinking. Conflicts arise when disparate organisations do not think carefully about the implications of an LDP and what it means for their investment programme, whether that be for public utilities, road infrastructure or schooling. The development industry is happy to make legitimate contributions towards detriments that occur on the back of its activities, but there is a wider question about public investment in infrastructure for public good beyond individual developments.

Sarah Boyack

That has sparked a thought. It is about the delivery phase, as well. It is not just about what goes into a plan; it is also about what happens afterwards. Our members’ experience is that collaborative work with local authorities can help to get developments moving. When different infrastructure providers are brought together, people talk in the same room rather than have endless conversations. That is about resourcing not just to produce a plan, but to implement it with stakeholders and place makers to get the high quality of place making that we aspire to.

Gordon Nelson

If the proposed infrastructure levy came through and was payable, we would argue that payment should come on the completion rather than the commencement of housing properties. That would make little financial difference to the local authorities that would collect it, but it would make a huge difference to SME developers. We argue for a build now, pay later model, otherwise the levy would act as another barrier to entry and disincentivise many home builders from upping their output.

The Convener

Graham Simpson has a brief supplementary question. We are pushed for time.

Graham Simpson

My impression is that builders—on this panel, anyway—do not want to pay for infrastructure, as is currently proposed. Sarah Boyack suggested another model that is based on land value uplift. How might that work in practice? Are you talking about compulsory purchase of land? That would probably horrify Tammy Swift-Adams.

Sarah Boyack

There is a range of mechanisms. You have mentioned compulsory purchase orders but, if we want affordable housing developments across tenures, there is a range of options that can be taken forward to have the capacity to have land that is affordable for development.

We agree that zoning land through simplified development zones could allot more areas for new housing, but the focus must be on supporting the development of smaller sites that provide better design, scale and quality. I sound a cautious note that that could, in principle, support more small sites coming through but equally that must not be at the expense of master planning large, strategic sites. That is a note of caution on simplified development zones.

Do other witnesses have views? Everyone has put their hand up. We will hear from Jonathan Fair first.

Jonathan Fair

Tammy Swift-Adams

If we got rid of an applicant’s right of appeal, we would exacerbate the existing housing problem. Each year, we are building only about 60 per cent of the houses that we think that we need to build, or that we were building pre-recession. If we take out the houses that come through appeal on the scale that Kevin Stewart outlined when he introduced the bill, that figure would be reduced to 40 per cent. Therefore, a significant amount of supply would be taken out.

Framing a limited right of appeal, or equal right of appeal, around departures would be very difficult. A departure from the plan is hard to define. A lot of communities would probably assume that, if a site was not specifically allocated in a plan, it is a departure, but it is not if it meets the broader aspirations and policies of the plan, including the housing targets. Often, the crux of what is debated in appeals is whether there has been a departure from the plan. There would need to be that full argument before it could be decided whether someone had access to the appeal system, so the measure would not be black and white.

Are there any circumstances in which the panel would find it reasonable that the community—not as a third party, but as an equal partner—would or should have a right to appeal any planning decision, or, as a matter of principle, is the right of appeal a no-go area?

Tammy Swift-Adams

I think that I said at the outset that we oppose such a change in principle, because of the impacts on investment in Scotland, which would put us at a disadvantage, and because of the increase in conflict. In principle, we certainty do not think that it would be a positive change.

Monica Lennon

Are all the witnesses against equal right of appeal in principle?

Sarah Boyack

There is another issue about where people’s voices are heard. One of the suggestions in the proposals by the Scottish alliance for people and places is about mediation and hearing what people have to say. Ensuring that people have been involved throughout the process, and do not find out things at the end, is a critical area in which the planning system needs to be better.

11:00

Monica Lennon

We could have a whole session looking at the fairness of appeals. If Tammy Swift-Adams’s figures are correct, and the route to appeal takes between six months and three years and costs between £50,000 and £300,000, it seems as though it is open to only the wealthy few who can afford very expensive consultants and solicitors.

Perhaps we could finish on the point about the purpose of planning. Should the bill state what that purpose is? In her evidence, Jenny Hogan talked about defining sustainable development. Does the bill tell us why we need to plan and what the legislation is for? Are those things fundamental to making this work?

Jenny Hogan

I reiterate that we would like sustainable development to clearly be front and centre in the bill. However, the bill is there to enable Scotland’s national priorities right across strategies, from the climate change plan to energy and housing. All the priorities for Scotland as a whole should be facilitated through the bill.

The Convener

Are there any other comments on the purpose of planning and whether it should be in the bill?

Tammy Swift-Adams

There is definitely a need to better explain to everybody how planning works. That is not necessarily quite the same thing as stating the purpose of planning, and the bill might not be the right place for it. A lot of conflict and misunderstanding comes from the fact that although we have a plan-led planning system, it is also very flexible—for good reasons—and delivery focused. Trying to frame a purpose that describes all that without alienating people who perhaps do not want that to be the purpose of planning could be quite an endeavour.

The Convener

We are now over our time. I am looking around to see whether any member has any absolutely burning issues that they feel the need to ask about at this point, before I move towards closing the session.

Kenneth Gibson

I do. First, I have not asked a substantive question and, secondly, the issue of older people’s housing has not been touched on. It is important, and we have a submission from McCarthy and Stone that is specifically on that.

We are all aware of the fact that, in the 1960s and 1970s, the private and public sectors built council houses and private houses that had no regard for older people, in that, for example, they were on hills or had big steps internally or externally. People have realised that that needs to change. McCarthy and Stone’s submission says:

“The 2016 review noted that ‘future proofing is needed to ensure the needs of Scotland’s ageing population are met’”,

but that

“the existing Bill and accompanying policy documents make no mention of older people’s housing as a policy priority”.

I want to explore, very briefly, one or two points that came out from that submission, to see what others have to say about them. One is that there should be a requirement for

“local authorities to prioritise specialist retirement housing”,

which should be regarded as

“as important as the need for, or equivalent to, affordable housing”.

Would that include dementia-friendly housing that is also suitable for people with disabilities, Mr Fair?

Jonathan Fair

Yes, it would. That is an important element of our views on the bill. As I said, we need to ensure that we provide appropriate guidance on how to meet the housing needs of older people in our communities. In locations that are appropriate for such developments, we also need to consider the need for connectivity and how that impacts on the size and location of sites. As I also said earlier, we then have to ensure that, having set clear national targets for such delivery, they are followed through at local level, which might be done through policy or through reporting and monitoring exercises.

We must also recognise that housing for older people across a range of tenures is appropriate. To ensure that we meet the needs of the growing demographic that exists in Scotland and given the population changes that are due to come in the decades ahead, it is critical that we do not look at just one type in that mix.

Kenneth Gibson

The figures that are presented in Mr Fair’s submission suggest that the number of people aged over 75 will increase from 440,000 to 800,000 by 2039. What should the national target for new-build housing for older people be, as a percentage of new builds, and how will that be delivered?

In your submission, Mr Fair, you mentioned brownfield sites on a number of occasions. You said:

“central brownfield sites between 0.25 to 0.5 hectares in size, close to shops, services, and transport links should be protected and a presumption given in favour of consent for specialist retirement housing, including sheltered housing and Extra Care accommodation”.

From my point of view, that is a step too far. There could be other competing priorities, but my experience is that older people do not necessarily like to live in such sites. In my constituency, 34 per cent of the population of Arran is retired, compared with 22 per cent of the mainland population. Those people often like to live in rural settings and have views of the Clyde and all the rest of it. How did you come to that conclusion? Furthermore, what should the affordable housing mix be within such developments? What targets should be set? Will you comment on brownfield sites, an issue that you mentioned frequently in your submission?

In view of the time constraints, I have asked all my questions together.

The Convener

Before the witnesses respond, I make it clear that I will close this evidence-taking session shortly. If any member has a burning issue that they want to raise or the panellists have something that they simply must say, this will be your last opportunity to do so.

I will take Mr Fair first, then allow others to make their final comments.

Jonathan Fair

I do not have a view on the proportion of housing that needs to be provided for older people, but they are a substantial part of the demographic. Only small numbers of appropriate and relevant housing is provided for them, so there is plenty to shoot at.

We have rightly focused on well-connected and centrally located brownfield sites. The drive behind that is older people’s tremendous pragmatism not just about what their needs are at the present time, but about what they might be in the future. Therefore, the need to be close to, for example, support services and networks, friends and families and community healthcare facilities tends to be a fairly important part of their thought process when they choose where to live. Equally, many people enjoy rural settings and excellent outlooks from their property.

In common with other parts of the population, different people have different needs, but from the feedback that we have—we monitor the situation closely with our client group—those are the features of retirement housing that they consider to be most appropriate for them.

Kenneth Gibson

What about my question about affordable housing?

Jonathan Fair

There are challenges in the planning system about how affordable housing contributions are applied to retirement housing developments. By their very nature, retirement developments provide an appropriate level of affordable housing for that area and release homes that are perhaps more appropriate for families or people who are starting out in life.

The Convener

To bring things back to what is in the bill, there is another discussion to be had about how that would fit into local development plans and 10-year plans.

Sarah Boyack

Although we have statistics about the future position, housing is an issue now. A key finding of our work with Shelter Scotland on SHIPs is that people’s needs across the country are not being met. A key gap is older people’s needs. There are a range of models to utilise, but the key issue is having choice for older people. Homes need to affordable, accessible and in places where older people want to live. Sometimes, that will be in bespoke retirement places; sometimes, people will want to be in the wider community, which might be in town centres and rural communities. We want there to be a range of options, including innovative co-housing, traditional affordable housing and housing for older people across the tenures.

Part of the solution is about making the connection at the local development plan level, so that the issue is not missed. That is about joining up the research on SHIPs and the work on housing needs and demand analysis, so that we have a much better grasp of what should come next.

On the issue of innovative design of new developments, accessibility and digital inclusion need to be planned in from the start. In addition to the building, the support services that come with it are a key part of the package, but affordability becomes more of a challenge when considering the care and support that we need at different times in our lives. However, having accessible buildings is vital from the start. I very much agree that affordable housing needs to be part of the proper process at the local level.

The Convener

Thank you for making reference to the local development plan and all that—it is helpful for our scrutiny.

We have three other witnesses who have not yet had an opportunity to make a final comment. They should not feel that they need to make one, but this is their opportunity to do so, if they so wish.

Gordon Nelson

Notwithstanding earlier comments that I and other panel members made about resources for planning authorities, an aspect of the bill that our members welcome is the proposals about monitoring the performance of planning authorities and improving it.

Feedback from our members tells us that a major factor in the delays that they experience as house builders is planning authorities’ inconsistent and poor performance and management and leadership issues. The measures in the bill take note of those things and would seem to address them, but we would welcome further discussion and guidance on how the proposals would drive up the performance of planning authorities.

Again, I repeat the point that many of our members understand that resources are a major constraint in planning departments around the country. We noted that that was evidenced in the RTPI’s submission from earlier this week.

The Convener

Although that was a lengthy evidence session, we have not covered everything in the bill—it was simply impossible to do so. I thank all the witnesses for their time here this morning.

We will move to our second witness panel shortly, but first I will suspend the meeting for about 10 minutes. The meeting will not reconvene until at least 11:20. Unfortunately, I must ask people in the public gallery to leave at this point, although they are welcome to come back after the suspension.

11:10 Meeting suspended.

11:25 On resuming—

The Convener

We continue with our first agenda item, which is the Planning (Scotland) Bill. I have the pleasure of welcoming our second panel of witnesses: Kate Houghton is the policy and practice officer at RTPI Scotland; Malcolm Fraser is a consultant architect; Professor Cliff Hague is emeritus professor of planning and spatial development at Heriot-Watt University; and Stuart Tait is manager and Dorothy McDonald is assistant manager at Clydeplan. I thank you all for taking the time to come and give evidence this morning.

I understand that each organisation seeks to make a brief opening statement. We will go from my left to my right, beginning with Malcolm Fraser.

Malcolm Fraser

Planning should be a wonderful, joyful thing. It unlocks enormous societal potential and resources. It also unlocks enormous financial resources. It is damning that, in the context of these discussions, it is always seen as a problem to be fiddled with, rather than an opportunity to take radical measures to adjust the harvesting of money and potential. That potential may come from communities, but also from land value. At the moment, we accept a system in which all the benefits and potential of planning accrue to landowners. We need to use bigger levers from outwith immediate planning discussions to unlock that. I am concerned with taking more radical measures.

Kate Houghton (Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland)

The Royal Town Planning Institute is a membership organisation. It is a chartered institute responsible for maintaining professional standards in planning. We are also a charity with the charitable purpose of advancing the art and science of town, country and spatial planning. We have 25,000 members worldwide, 2,000 of whom are here in Scotland. Our views on the bill and the wider planning review are very much informed by conversations with our members over the last couple of years.

We view the bill and the wider review as opportunities to move away from a reactive planning system to a more proactive one. We believe that, with the right tools and resources, planners can make and deliver plans that result in better outcomes for Scotland.

Professor Cliff Hague (Heriot-Watt University)

As well as being here in my academic capacity, I am chair of the Cockburn Association, which has also submitted comments to the committee and there is a degree of congruence between my views and those of the association. Reviewing the planning system is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The Parliament has two choices. One is to assume that things will carry on pretty much as they are and to look backwards to what has happened in England and how well that has worked over the past 15 years or so. The other choice is to look forwards by considering the international obligations that the Scottish Government has signed up to, take account of the likely impact of disruptive technologies on our places and think about how we deliver inclusive growth in a society in which it appears that household incomes have stalled and there are widening inequalities. The choice of looking back at the English experience would be a good one if it had worked. However, recently, the Prime Minister herself stated that there is a housing crisis in England. I propose that we shift the gaze and begin to engage with a different agenda.

11:30

Stuart Tait (Clydeplan)

I thank the committee for inviting Clydeplan to give evidence. For those of you who are not aware of Clydeplan, we are the strategic planning authority for the Glasgow city region. Clydeplan encompasses eight local authorities and covers a third of Scotland’s population as well as a third of its economic output.

We have a small team that supports a structure of governance, including a joint committee of members and a senior management team. We are at the end of a process with our second strategic development plan, as part of the current system, but we recognise that regional planning is a long-term aspiration for the west of Scotland and has been since 1947, when the Clyde valley plan was published.

The statutory role of strategic planning has been integral to the planning system in Scotland for many years, and we are now at a crossroads as to where that will position itself as we move forward, given the terms of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. However, as our economic, land use and transportation patterns have evolved, it has become increasingly important to think about delivering economic growth across city regions. Even the independent panel acknowledged the value of planning at the city region scale, and the Scottish Government recognises that strategic planning is an essential element of the overall planning system.

Taking that in context, the question is how that is delivered. Obviously, the bill seeks to remove the statutory duty to prepare a strategic development plan. Clydeplan does not wish that to happen. We think that there is still a role for the statutory nature of the plan, although processes around it could be changed to expand and enhance it. However, if things are going to change and the preparation of an SDP is to be removed from the system, we firmly believe that a regional spatial strategy is critical to economic delivery and that any role in that regard as part of a regional partnership should be a statutory duty.

The Convener

I suspect that we will look at that matter in some detail, Mr Tait.

Monica Lennon

I remind everyone again that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

A logical place to start, perhaps, is the purpose of planning. I note that RTPI Scotland, Malcolm Fraser and Professor Hague have all argued in their written submissions that the bill should establish a clear purpose for the planning system. Should a statutory purpose for the planning system be set out in the bill? If so, what should that purpose be?

Malcolm Fraser

That is stated under the United Nations sustainable development goals, which the First Minister has committed Scotland to achieving. Goal 11 states:

“Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”.

We could argue that that is a bromide if it is not delivered further down the line but, as a strapline to have at the top of everything that we do, it cannot be bettered. It clearly ties in with statements that have been made on behalf of Scotland that have already been accepted, so I do not see why that should not start off all our considerations and why everything should not follow from that and refer back to it.

Kate Houghton

There is absolutely a place for stating the purpose of planning in the bill. The review has been going on for about two years now and there has been a lot of detailed conversation, and we have ended up with this proposed primary legislation, which makes some fairly procedural changes to the system. It is therefore important at this stage to step back and remember what we want the planning system to achieve for Scotland. The committee’s questions as part of the invitation to give written evidence were very telling, because you asked whether the bill provides a balance on issues X, Y and Z. That was an interesting question, because we need to ask whether that really is what we want the planning system to achieve. It is important for all stakeholders involved in the system that we are all absolutely clear what our end goal is.

Professor Hague

What is the alternative to having a purpose? There are presumably two possibilities. One is that there is no purpose, in which case why are we doing it? The other is that there is a purpose but we are not prepared to say what it is, and that is not a great piece of administration. Logically, there has to be a purpose, and it can be helpful to look at what is done elsewhere. I agree with Malcolm Fraser that we should start with sustainable development goal 11. Target 11.4, for example, is about conservation of the natural and cultural environment. Those things need to be picked up and recognised.

If we strengthen the national planning framework and provide a clearer focus on delivery in local development plans so that local authority planners are not in a constant cycle of producing five-year plans, will that not free up people to be more focused? Could we lose the layer in the middle that you currently occupy?

Stuart Tait

In my view, it would be unwise to lose that layer. From my experience, it would be better to keep it as part of the statutory development plan process, which allows the local authorities to come together to consider with other stakeholders and partners what is the best way to plan for their city region. We do not live and work within one small local authority area; we work on a cross-boundary basis. Housing, infrastructure and green networks all transcend local authority boundaries and have to be considered in the appropriate geography. As we have seen over many years, the appropriate geography is the regional scale.

The disconnect between plan and delivery is symptomatic of the system that we have set up, because the strategic development planning authorities have been set up solely to deliver the SDPs to the Scottish ministers on behalf of the authorities. Any new system could still have the SDP as a statutory document, but it could be enhanced with regard to delivery through the provision of resources and continuity around delivery plans. We could move to a 10-year cycle. An aspect of the SDP that I have always found frustrating is that, once it has been approved, four years later another document has to be submitted. As SDPs are statutory documents, that is a long-term process. That cycle of replacement does not allow for the holding of discussions of the kind that you referred to. However, the space is there for local authorities to come together and think about how they plan for their area.

Kate Houghton

With regard to the value of regional strategic planning, as Stuart Tait has pointed out, people and the natural environment do not strictly obey political boundaries, if they obey them at all. It is important to acknowledge that what happens with investment and development on one side of a border will affect what happens on the other side of that border.

It is instructive to note that, in England, where regional planning was dismantled in 2010, the UK Government is making available to local authorities funding to produce joint core strategies through multi-authority arrangements. In effect, that is an acknowledgement that some statutory regional planning is a good thing.

Professor Hague

Somebody once said that the regional scale is the scale at which you try to solve the problem above the scale at which you last managed to solve it. There is an ambiguity about what a region is, but there is undoubtedly an increasing emphasis internationally on the importance of functional city regions and the geography of that. That is why UN-Habitat now talks about urban and territorial planning, which was originally a French term, although we can use “regional” and get away with it. It is basically an issue of subsidiarity. Problems are best addressed at the lowest feasible level, and there is a strong case for saying that, in Scotland, the region is such a scale, and that a plan, rather than just a partnership, gives a mechanism to do that.

11:45

Monica Lennon

I want to throw in the topic of city region deals. Before I was a member of this committee, the committee held an inquiry into city region deals. We are seeing more of those being introduced in Scotland. We are trying to achieve inclusive growth at the level of the city region, so is it an odd time to abolish strategic development planning authorities? Do you have an alternative view?

Dorothy McDonald

I want to respond partly to your previous question about outcomes. We have provided a very clear context for the local development plans, additional context for development management decisions and a platform for collaboration. That does not sound like much, but I can expand on that briefly. I am thinking of partnership working at the level of the functional housing market area. That is important because cities cannot plan for their housing needs and demands within the confines of their own boundaries. Finally, as another outcome, we provided a context and a platform for the city region programme of infrastructure projects. That was the basis for the city region funding that came to the table on which key infrastructure projects have been based. Many authorities used that as their first point of call in developing the projects that are part of the infrastructure bids.

Malcolm Fraser

It is not sustainable. Scottish local authorities are cut off from their hinterlands—Edinburgh from the Lothians, Dundee from Angus, Aberdeen from the shire, and so on. Local authorities need to be bigger to be able to plan better—they need to be the same size as health boards or at least the city regions. However they are already too distant from their citizens. It begs the question of the need for community councils or parish councils to be reintroduced, empowered and given responsibility. Subsidiarity should allow communities within Edinburgh to take more responsibility for their own affairs—as they are doing under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015—and should allow local democracy to be reintroduced. I am all for larger local authorities that can plan better as city regions and for re-empowered local community councils all around our towns, villages and settlements within cities.

Professor Hague

The city region deals strengthen the case for regional-scale planning. The risk of city deals is that they take a project-driven approach to development. There can be a series of pet projects, which may be valuable, but the question is how they are integrated. That is part of the role of the plan.

Stuart Tait

That is the point that I was going to make. It is important that the projects do not sit in isolation and that there is a delivery mechanism for core components of a strategy for the city region—projects must sit in the context of maximising the investment and the economic value of what comes out of them.

Graham Simpson

Do you think that we should have a model that is based on the city deal? Should the authorities involved in city deals or growth deals become planning authorities in their own right?

Malcolm Fraser

That is the case, although I take Professor Hague’s point that city deals are too focused on projects such as bypasses, relief roads and things like that. They would need to be re-linked to proper regional planning. Part of the reason that regional planning does not work is that it is undermined by land speculation markets, so we end up with land to the north of Edinburgh not being built on and speculation around getting the green belt of Edinburgh built on instead.

Kate Houghton

It almost needs to work the other way round. We want to encourage local authorities to work together to agree the outcomes, which could be done through something like a regional spatial strategy. We would like local authorities to choose their geographies using that strategy so that, when something like a city deal opportunity arose, there would already be an agreed set of outcomes that would feed into a wider corporate strategy. It is not just about special development; it is about economic growth, health outcomes, education and so on. When that funding became available, local authorities would be able to target it at pre-decided priorities.

The Convener

Would Stuart Tait like to add to that?

Stuart Tait

Dorothy McDonald

You are absolutely spot on, convener.

Professor Hague

We all recognise the need for more integration, so it seems perverse to propose a measure that would make integration powers weaker. The key aim is to take the strategic level of planning closer to the budgets and closer to the investment priorities of the different stakeholders who will deliver the development on the ground.

I see the regional plan as the basis of negotiation for that approach, which would then be followed up by the partnerships, the city deals and so forth. I see that as being a dynamic process between them. However, I do not see how removing the strategic development plan—especially as there is little evidence that it is seriously broken; we need think only of the work that Kevin Murray Associates did a couple of years ago in that regard—would help us to deliver more developments on the ground in the places where we want them.

The Convener

That is helpful. It is best that we move on, because there is a lot in the bill.

Kenneth Gibson

I welcome everything that Malcolm Fraser has said about strategic development plans, because I have been arguing those points for years.

Let us move on to simplified development zones. Professor Hague’s submission says:

“Simplifying the planning system could make it more equitable and expeditious, and less reliant on the time consuming appeals system. However, the SDZ proposal does not deliver such change and again misses the point that the role of the planning system is more multifaceted than just regulating development.”

He says that we should

“use the planning system to promote innovation that contributes to the SDGs”—

sustainable development goals—

“whereas what is proposed seems just a way of making it easier to deliver mediocre development.”

Will you expand on that, and will others on the panel give us their views?

Professor Hague

If the aim of SDZs is to deliver what we want, why do we not have them everywhere rather than just in certain areas? The problem is that we do not want just more housing planning permissions; we want a wider array of things. That means that, at some stages, we want to conserve areas or landscapes rather than simply develop them.

The difficulty is that a fix has been suggested, in the bill and in the review, on the basis that the real issue is that planning is blocking the delivery of housing planning permissions, which equates to housing on the ground and housing of the type that we want. There are question marks over all those points. Is planning the sole blocking factor? It clearly is not. Are we getting the housing that we want? As was mentioned in the previous session, we want affordable housing, mid-market rent housing and housing for an ageing population. We also want quality of place in design terms. We risk going down a track that misses the main point, which is that quality development—which may have a strong element of conservation to it—is often a more sustainable option than new development. Therefore, how the SDZ proposal is couched risks sending us on the wrong track.

It is logical for a plan to identify areas where special action would be taken. Indeed, there is long history of that approach in planning. That—dare I say it?—takes us back the old days of comprehensive development areas. Yes, you can use the plan to identify areas where you want to do special things, such as encourage innovation in design, products, energy or whatever, but to see it simply as a way of speeding up development really misses the point.

Kate Houghton

I very much agree with Professor Hague’s comments that SDZs have the potential to focus proactive planning. For example, a site would be allocated in the plan and the SDZ could have a valuable role in saying that the challenges with the site—whether access, utilities, contamination or financial viability—give a focus in getting the site delivered.

Without the proper resourcing, however, that aim will not be achievable. SDZs require a lot of up-front work from local authorities in terms of master planning and work with stakeholders, but, because an SDZ does not involve a planning application, there is no planning application fee. To ensure that SDZs deliver the right development, it will be important that the resources are available to frame them properly.

Graham Simpson will explore that a little more. The matter was discussed in detail at the communities conference that we had in Stirling, and the contention was that it sounded good and that changing the name to simplified development zones made it sound like good master planning that involved lots of up-front work in speaking to people in a community about what they wanted to see on land that was not being used However, Kate Houghton and Malcolm Fraser are asking why that would not be done everywhere.

Going back to the policy intent, all MSPs know about bits of land in their constituencies that we are desperate to see developed because it would be the final piece of the jigsaw for place setting, but we cannot get the market to bite. We can think of lots of reasons why simplified development zones could really work with massive community support. I am saying what my vision is, but, without a clear policy statement or clarity about the purpose of the bill, I am getting a lukewarm response from the witnesses. Would that change if there was greater clarity as to the bill’s purpose?

Professor Hague

The purpose must be more diverse than it is presented as being. That comes back to one of the big issues hanging over the whole thing, which we have not yet touched on—trust. There needs to be a sense of trust between communities, the system and the development industry. The difficulty is that the bill is presented in such a way that it will primarily be about speeding up development for housing without its having to go through as many hoops as normal in a planning system and without necessarily having the great vision that Mr Doris has, which is one of the factors that reduces public confidence in the process.

Graham Simpson

I look forward to hearing Mr Doris’s vision later.

I have a simple question on simplified development zones. Simplified planning zones, as they currently stand, cannot be set up in certain areas, such as conservation areas, the green belt and national scenic areas. That provision does not exist in the bill for simplified development zones. That may be an oversight, but do you think that those restrictions should apply?

The Convener

Feel free to refer to my vision at any point during your answer, Professor Hague.

Professor Hague

That is the point that I just made. It is the kind of thing that makes people feel suspicious and that less value and priority will be attached to things such as conservation areas, which are much loved in Scotland—if any systematic research was done, people would see how valued they are. People also feel that a hands-off approach to approving development will be prioritised. If we see the bill as being about not just speeding up development—which we are all in favour of—but addressing the issue of public trust, that is a bit of an own goal.

Kate Houghton

On the potential role of SDZs in what we call market making—making a site more attractive to development—it is important, from the point of view of heritage and nature conservation, to think about how we can develop in a way that is sympathetic to those objectives. Again, it goes back to the policy purpose of SDZs. If they are resourced to enable good planning that, for example, allows a listed building to come back into use and to be refurbished as part of a sympathetic scheme, that is obviously a good thing, but it is important that they are not used as a way to get around the proper scrutiny that is needed for other consents.

Dorothy McDonald

I have a generic point to make about the purpose of development planning. In a very real sense, development plans deliver just one thing—the ability to grant planning permission to land. SDZs might fall into similar territory.

My more substantive point is that, if we—by which I mean the big “we”—want to front fund infrastructure and achieve development delivery, we should fund it and resource it.

Monica Lennon

Professor Hague

The discussion highlights the extent to which there is systematic distortion in the logic of the bill. On the one hand, it is all about front loading community involvement and rebuilding trust; on the other hand, when the chips are down, people can still lose out at the last stage through an SDZ or the appeals system.

I totally support Malcolm Fraser’s view and agree that the example that he gave should not happen. However, in the end, 95 per cent of planning applications are approved.

Dorothy McDonald

More than that.

Professor Hague

Okay—more than that. I am corrected.

The real problem is in the appeal system. Basically, most of the system ticks over okay. It could be better, but we would not have such a planning bill if there were many more problems there. The real issues are in the appeal system—the inequalities in it, and the extent to which, after all the front loading, the real decision can come at the final stage and not be locally accountable.

The Convener

We will consider the appeal system in more detail later on. We are not ignoring it; we are just going through a flow of evidence.

As the RTPI said in our written submission, the research that the Scottish Government commissioned showed that, in the best-case scenario, the figure would be about £75 million annually, which would be helpful but is not on the scale that we need to overcome the infrastructure challenge. Dorothy McDonald alluded to some of the complexities that prevent development and which have nothing to do with planning allocations or permissions; indeed, the issue is about getting infrastructure that can service development. That needs a lot more than the quantum of money that we are talking about with the infrastructure levy.

Professor Hague

The evidence shows that the answer to your question is that it will be to a limited extent, although it will be more in some places than in others. In places where the market is strong, the levy is likely to generate more and in places where the market is weak, it will probably not generate much. Therefore, with the best will in the world, it is overoptimistic to rely on that and see it as a game changer that will fundamentally alter and remove the blockages in the system. In the end, we need an approach that ties the plan more closely to budgets and investment—that means public sector budgets, including those of bodies such as the health service and other significant public sector landowners, as well as the investment priorities of the range of infrastructure providers.

In the end, we will have to accept that the cost of providing infrastructure for the public good should come primarily out of the public purse. However, the value that is then created by that infrastructure should also be recouped by the public purse. That seems to me to be a fairly equitable and potentially more efficient way of doing it. I repeat the point that that is what is being talked about in, for example, the South African system.

Malcolm Fraser

The infrastructure levy is fiddling where radical change is needed. I go back to my opening statement—massive public good could be unlocked in new development, but there are also massive financial benefits to be unlocked.

It is calculated that, in Edinburgh in the next 20 years, more than £8.6 billion will be released. Even if there is public investment in places that need regeneration in the north-east of Glasgow, for example, the land value goes up around that public investment and all the gains are harvested by the landowners and consultants. We need to use a different system, in which we make a positive decision that the riches that are unlocked in the built environment accrue to the people of Scotland who need houses and new communities, and not to the landowners who own the land. That is how the new town in Edinburgh was built and how the post-war new towns were built in Scotland. It is how the most active Asian economies work.

If land is designated for housing within a strategic development or a local development plan, the value of that land leaps up from £15,000 an acre to £2 million an acre. A massive amount of value is released and that value needs to be harvested by the local authority for the benefit of the people. The local authority can then borrow against that rise in value to invest in public infrastructure such as schools, health facilities, and roads, so that house builders can get on with doing their bit, and we can also designate land for different types of housing such as co-housing, and different ways of managing housing for intergenerational care, collective self-build, and that sort of thing. Harvesting that value would truly deliver a plan-led system that is not just plan led in name but has the financial resources to deliver.

House builders would like it because it would let them get on without having to wait for the drip of section 75 money or the infrastructure levy, which will just be a micro-managed fight all the way down the line. It would be an absolute game changer. It is a matter of regret that discussions around planning do not recognise that these bigger discussions are going on about land reform in other places. We are sitting in a wee silo and not understanding that, behind planning, the issue of land and who benefits from land is of enormous import.

Alexander Stewart

You have identified many of the issues for unlocking potential and making it happen. It has happened elsewhere, in other nations and countries. What could we do through the bill that would make such an impact and achieve that goal?

Malcolm Fraser

I do not know whether that is possible through the bill that you have in front of you. However, the discussion needs to at least recognise that, outwith the immediate planning discussion and planning silos, there are bigger undercurrents and issues in Scotland with the land reform commission, and there are alternatives to the infrastructure levy and section 75 agreements.

In an ideal world, the bill could introduce such a system, but perhaps it needs to acknowledge that there are other methods and talk about the potential value of doing it. For example, if Edinburgh invests in putting the tram down to Newhaven, which it should do, the value of all that land around Newhaven will leap up and again, we will be unable to build on it and there will be cries for public subsidy or for land from the green belt because we cannot deliver houses around the tram stops.

The market is a wonderful machine for extracting value out of all public subsidy that goes into it. As Churchill established and said very eloquently, we need to use the market but find a way to adjust it so that it delivers for people in the communities and not just for landowners and market speculators.

Professor Hague

I agree with what Malcolm Fraser has said. We need to recognise that the issue goes to the heart of the idea of inclusive growth or exclusive growth. A situation in which somebody can make a staggering fortune by the standards of teachers, nurses, firemen and police officers is a major driver of exclusive growth. We now know that one of the challenges that we face is how to make the pattern of growth fairer and more inclusive. If we disregard the issue, we are not being neutral but are reinforcing the pattern that drives inequality.

There are some substantive things that we can do if we go back to the original purpose. We need to have a sideways reference to land reform and the aims of the land reform programme; the planning bill must state that it aims to support, facilitate and integrate with the land reform programme. We also have to look at the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, which gives the landowner the hope value in any transition to public ownership. Those are the kind of changes that could be made.

The Convener

I want to check something. The Planning (Scotland) Bill includes the power to introduce an infrastructure levy, but the Government has said that it does not intend to do that yet. The Scottish Land Commission is looking at innovative ways of using land, including land value capture. Would it be helpful if the bill included the option of taking the power over some of those things in the section that deals with the infrastructure levy, given that we do not know what will be the end point of the Scottish Land Commission’s review? Would it be appropriate to ensure that the contents of the bill and the commission’s conclusions dovetail, in case those conclusions are similar to suggestions that have been made by witnesses today? Would that be a reasonable approach to take to the bill?

Malcolm Fraser

That would be the definition of joined-up thinking.

Professor Hague

Integrate, integrate, integrate!

The Convener

I thought I heard you say, “In’t it great?” [Laughter.]

Andy Wightman

I have a brief follow-up question on land value. The bill follows a 70-year-old tradition of town and country planning. Section 48 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 contains a provision for public authorities to acquire land at its current-use value. That provision was included in order to enable Britain to rebuild after the war. A similar provision was also built into the “Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany”, for the same purpose. However in the United Kingdom, the provision was repealed in 1959. If we were to amend the bill in order to reintroduce that provision, that would go to the heart of planning legislation. Would that help? One of the problems is that it would devalue the land on the balance sheets of landowners and developers across the country, so there might be an argument for restricting it to simplified development zones, for example. Cliff Hague talked about public land assembly at a fair price, master planning and passing on development to those who want to procure housing.

Professor Hague

That could be a way of trialling it. We could see what happens with simplified or special action zones, for example. There is no doubt that the proposal that we have been floating would be controversial and would have the impact that Andy Wightman suggested on the values of assets of various house builders and the investors behind them. However, in the end we are talking about a system that is designed to deliver quality places for the Scottish people. We are not talking about a system that exists to protect and enhance the asset values of companies.

There is, however, not quite such a divide as that suggests, because we depend on those companies investing to provide a significant part of the built environment. I accept that. That is why we could look for a transitional arrangement.

To go back to the convener’s question, we should still hold out the option in the legislation that things could be done differently. I will go back to where I started. Basically, we have a rerun of what has happened in England over the past 10 or 20 years, which has not worked and has not delivered the types of places and houses and access to housing to which people aspire. Why repeat that model if we know that it does not work?

Kate Houghton

It is important to make the link to the Scottish Land Commission to ensure joined-up thinking. The commission’s approach recognises the importance of land for development in the strategic plan. As we consider the issue and seek a long-term solution to the problem, it is important that we work with the Scottish Land Commission to model and carry out more research on the impact on Scotland more broadly, and therefore on how the policy could be implemented successfully.

I concur with what Kate Houghton said about a requirement for a different process of ownership by members of Parliament such as yourselves. The national planning framework being part of the national development plan makes it a different document all together. The ability of that document to raise the value of land is critical, which I am sure the committee will want to consider.

The question for us is how that document relates to the regional dimension: what the NPF asks of the regional partnerships, if they are created, and what the relationship is, and rules of engagement are, between the strategic development plan and the national planning framework at national and regional levels. At the moment, those rules of engagement are unclear. Would the national planning framework set out housing numbers, for example? How would that be disaggregated to the relevant geographies? What would be the role in that of the strategic development plan, or of regional partnerships if strategic development plans are removed? The document is going to be radically different, so the committee should have a strong think about the processes around its scrutiny and approval, and about who has ownership of it.

The other element that I want to mention in relation to the NPF becoming a statutory document is that it is the wish of the Government that it should deliver for Scotland. We must ask how that document influences budgetary spend and how we align elements of Government spend to support what is in the national development plan, because its status has changed.

I will go back to the example of the strategic development plan. When it is approved by the Scottish ministers, we get a letter that says that no part of the plan is guaranteed grant funding or expenditure, so we have to work on different ways of implementing it. There is nothing that commits the minister to funding the strategic development plan, even though it has been signed off by the Scottish ministers. There is a similar debate on the role and function of the NPF. Does it drive ministerial spend in support of delivery, or is it something that is nice to have but that we will worry about later? There are a couple of points there for committee members to get their heads round because of the enhanced status that the NPF will have in the development plan hierarchy.

The Convener

Are there comments from other witnesses on that?

Professor Hague

I am watching the time—I know that there are other points that we need to get on to.

The Convener

I suspect that we are drifting towards ending at 1 o’clock. I did say that 12.45 was ambitious. I promise that we will get on to other points.

Professor Hague

I will say that that the NPF has worked pretty well. I have not, to be honest, thought much about the suggestion in Andy Wightman’s question, which seems to me to be quite a parliamentary question.

However, one concern that I have is whether, if we tie the NPF into the development plan system, that will restrict the capacity of the NPF to range widely and address matters that might fall outwith the scope of the statutory system at the moment—especially if we do not have a declared purpose of planning that takes on the points that we were talking about earlier this morning.

The Convener

We might move on now, if that is okay with Andy Wightman.

We also certainly want to look at local place plans. In earlier evidence, we have heard concerns about their having to be resourced properly and about ensuring equivalence of capacity throughout the country and across communities. I will start by asking our witnesses the following question. Having said that—witnesses may make reference to it in answering, if they wish—are there opportunities in relation to local place plans in terms of front loading community engagement with the planning process right at the start? How might those link—or not—to local development plans, which I am sure we will come on to look at as well?

Professor Hague

There is an issue, which was touched on in the previous session, about local plans’ timing in relation to the 10-year review. Should they come before the review, as inputs, or run concurrently with it? Alternatively, should they come after the review—should there be another 10-year wait before they are adopted or should there then be another review because there is a place plan? The resourcing and timing issues are connected—

The Convener

I apologise for interrupting—I have chastised other members for cutting off witnesses—but my understanding as regards timing is that local place plans can be delivered whenever communities are ready. Do you have a preference on timing, or do you think that it is right that plans should be delivered when communities are ready? Even if development plans are then set with nine years, 11 months and 30 days still to run, should they still take cognisance of local place plans?

Professor Hague

I am slightly making this up as I go along, because I have not fully thought the matter through, but what might work, and what I will float as an idea is that after the announcement that there will be an LDP or an LDP review, there should be an opportunity for communities to bid for having an LPP in their area. The LDP process should review those and consider its own priorities and where it thinks particular action would be appropriate. It should then identify areas that will have LPPs in the subsequent part of the process. That might get over some of the problems in resourcing, prioritising and integrating the process. However, I am happy to be shot down for that idea because, as I said, I have not fully thought it through.

The Convener

That is a helpful suggestion. The committee is wrestling with what local place plans will look like and what the dynamic with development plans will be.

Kate Houghton

Local place plans certainly could be helpful, provided that they are resourced. Resources will be needed for capacity building in communities, for relevant technical expertise and to make sure that LPPs are tied into other local authority corporate strategies. As Professor Hague said, we need to make sure that the timing is right as far as the LDP—which will remain the strategic plan for the local authority area—is concerned.

Another condition that is extremely important is to make sure that local place plans are properly tied in with other measures that are coming through—for example, on community empowerment. We know that, as part of community planning, local authorities are consulting on locality plans as part of locality boards, and that conversations are taking place with communities. We need to make sure that local place plans strengthen the ability to take outcomes from those consultations and turn them into statutory spatial planning, rather than adding another layer, which might be quite confusing.

We need to be clear about what outcome we seek when we talk to people about their places and ask them for their say. They might talk about a host of issues, some of which might not be to do with statutory spatial planning. Local place plans offer the ability to take the things that are relevant and to pull them into the planning system, but it is not yet clear how that process will be aligned with community planning.

Malcolm Fraser

As someone who has led several towns’ charrettes, which are a form of local planning, I know that there is great frustration at the sharp end of communities about the fact that the outcomes are almost universally set aside when it comes to planning applications. The applications that come in are at variance with outputs from the charrettes, and there seems to be no appetite in planning departments to apply the outcomes of charrettes to incoming applications. How that should be strengthened is perhaps a question for Kate Houghton.

I understand that, at the moment, local planners have to “have regard to” local place planning and charrettes. Are they told that that regard has to be material? Is there a form of words that would make planners listen? At the moment, they are not listening. They are taking sustainable development as an imperative, whereby they will say yes to any application that comes in, but without applying processes that have been paid for with public money and into which local people have put time and effort. Those processes just seem to be set aside.

The Convener

It would be helpful if Kate Houghton could answer that. The bill asks planning authorities to “have regard to” local place plans, but it does not say what that should mean. Should there be a clear process by which local authorities must consider local place plans that would give them an evidence base for explaining to what extent the plans had been incorporated into their development plan, or should the two just dovetail? What is the best way of resolving that?

Kate Houghton

That highlights the point about alignment and timing. For me, the proposed evidence report that forms part of the LDP process will be even more important than local place plans when it comes to front loading community involvement in planning decisions. A lot of what happens will rest on making sure that the evidence report is transparent and truly participatory, and that community inputs are heard at that point. There are already community action plans and urban regeneration forums. The outcomes from those processes should feed in at the evidence report stage.

I am in the same position as Professor Hague in that I have been trying to synthesise my thinking. A way of doing it might be to use the evidence report to highlight the big strategic issues for all stakeholders, including communities. Those issues could feed into the development of the LDP, which covers a bigger area and is a more strategic document, while the local place plans could look at some of the finer-grained detail at neighbourhood level.

The Convener

It would be helpful to hear any views that the witnesses may have on what that evidence report should look like if it is to be meaningful. We have not asked whether front loading the system is the right approach.

12:45

Professor Hague

Thereafter, the closer the process is tied into the development plan, the more crucial it is that it is respected as it goes through the latter stages of the system. We absolutely must not get into situations in which a community organisation, with the support of the council, has committed a lot of time and effort to preparing the local place plan, and then two years down the line permission for a development is granted at appeal that contradicts the plan and in which the community has had no say. In such situations, people will be scunnered, and we must not get into them. The more the local place plan is integrated, the more robust it must be and the more strength it must have as it goes through the system.

The Convener

This will be the witnesses’ last opportunity to talk about local place plans, and then we will move on.

Kate Houghton

I have mentioned this briefly, but it is worth repeating. The statistics show that, since 2009, local authorities have lost 23 per cent of their planners. For local place plans to succeed and to be influential, and for people to be properly involved in preparing them, they will have to be resourced. It is impossible to overstate the importance of that.

Stuart Tait

There is another point about the relationship between the national planning framework and the development plan hierarchy. Will the communities that are involved in the production of local place plans understand something that is set up through the national planning framework that might have a direct influence on their local place plan? Will they engage in that national planning framework process sufficiently to understand the implications as it flows down through the regional and local levels to their specific area? I am thinking particularly about housing numbers. There could be a real disconnect between the two.

The Convener

That is helpful. We will now move on to the next line of questioning.

Graham Simpson

I want to look at the system of appeals—I would appreciate a whistle-stop tour. I think that the witnesses all have different views on the issue, so this should be interesting. Should we have a system of appeals? If so, what should it be?

Malcolm Fraser

The system is clearly iniquitous. On the other hand, long attritional processes are a public disaster. I have never seen a development get better during appeal. The only winners I have seen are lawyers and planning consultants. The development is usually built, but with much of the value taken out of it and it is worse than when it started off.

The simple solution is to allow nobody to appeal. That would have the very radical consequence of making sure that we got things right upstream, and it would take away the planners who tell me that they are turning down an application, but that I will win on appeal. It would make sure that the right decisions were made upstream so that development happened more quickly. It would reduce the processes and administration in the system and focus on what we say and think about getting planning right. It would also make sure that local communities were involved earlier on, and it would strengthen the democratic process by requiring planning committee members to consider the economic impact and the impact on communities at the same time. To me, that would be a win-win situation.

Kate Houghton

We have talked about a lot of things today that are really significant in scope. We have talked about the purpose of the planning system, local place plans—which for the first time offer the public the chance to write their own plan—and public infrastructure. What we have on the table here is the opportunity to make some transformative changes to the planning system that will make it proactive and deliver for everybody, as I have said. It is more important to focus on that than to tinker around the edges with appeals. We want to make sure that we have a positive system up front that is working properly.

Professor Hague

I heard the discussion at the end of the previous evidence session. One thing that struck me was the assumption by Scottish Renewables, Homes for Scotland and other industry representatives that something like an equal right of appeal would mean that fewer permissions would be granted on appeal. It seems that if someone has faith in the rightness of their development application, the fact that it is subjected to an appeal by objectors or third parties should not reduce the possibility of that application being upheld.

I think that the appeals part is the Achilles’ heel in the system. It is the point at which there is maximum distrust and delay, and at which the system is most inequitable in terms of the costs that people can incur and the investment that they put in. In many international systems, the appeal either goes back to the authority that took the original decision or it goes to a tribunal that takes a decision but then goes back to the executive of the authority.

Everybody agrees that, by increasing the certainty, we can probably speed up decisions and increase the amount of development that we can deliver. The system needs to be simplified as a matter of both efficiency and equity. There is a strong case for looking at some of the models that Mr Wightman’s earlier questioning opened up.

Dorothy McDonald

My experience is that, when collaborative working is operating well in planning authorities and local authorities, development proposals usually have a very happy and smooth journey. That is very evident in the case of applications for housing developments from registered social landlords, which tend to work very collaboratively with local authorities. However, that is sometimes not the case with private sector development, and there is something to be said for developers and others with development proposals working more collaboratively with planning authorities upstream.

Graham Simpson

Malcolm Fraser suggests that there should be no right of appeal—clearly, that would treat people equally—but organisations such as Homes For Scotland would argue that if the right of appeal were removed, developers, for example, would be scared away from Scotland. How would you answer that point?

13:00

Malcolm Fraser

The answer would have to be that this is about focusing on the process upstream and getting better results from that. It should not mean that applications that would win on appeal are turned down. The point would have to be that those who win an appeal should have won originally. I admit that that would require a bit more professionalism from planning committees, but it would also require a bit more realism about the importance of development. I hope that that could be advertised to those who were investing in Scotland as a measure that Scotland was taking to make sure that its planning process was more robust, clear and open, and that it would produce good results for good development more quickly.

You are absolutely allowed to disagree with each other. Getting people’s views is the point of having evidence-taking sessions.

Do you have any further follow-up questions, Mr Simpson?

Graham Simpson

No, because I know that others want to come in.

Monica Lennon

I am having a member’s business debate—I hope that it will take place next week, but it might be moved, given the changes to parliamentary business—on the issue of incinerators, planning and public health. To illustrate my question, I will use the example of energy-from-waste plants in Lanarkshire, where I am based. Back in 2013, there was a lot of front loading and up-front engagement before a planning application was made. The communities, in the widest sense, were heavily involved across different council ward boundaries and so on, because the environmental impact of such applications does not respect local boundaries.

The local planning committee, on a cross-party basis, refused the application. The developer used the right of appeal and, irrespective of Scottish planning policy—the development was not acceptable under SPP guidelines—the application was approved on appeal anyway. The approval came 12 months after the appeal was lodged, so a lot of uncertainty and tension were created in that time. The developer was entitled to have that appeal, but the application violated the local development plan and was not consistent with Scottish planning policy. However, the developer has gone back in and now wants a bigger and bolder facility.

That has been a route for developers to get more out of the system, and communities feel really let down when that happens, when they have acted in good faith and engaged with the process. When we talk about equalising the system, I keep thinking about the situation that I have described, because that is an example in which a community got involved and gave up their Saturdays and evenings but, at the end of the day, the people who could afford the planning consultants and lawyers were able to appeal and win. What does that say for democracy? Is that the kind of planning system that we want?

Kate Houghton

That is why we are here. We are trying to make the system work better.

Monica Lennon

But are we not defending the status quo if we say that we should leave appeals as they are because we hope that the bill will be transformative, even though we have no evidence that any resources will be put into planning to make sure that that is the case? There seems to be a feeling that we should leave appeals to one side. Last week, Petra Biberbach said that we could have a conversation about appeals, but not necessarily in the context of the bill. Why should we put the issue aside to deal with later?

Kate Houghton

The example that you are talking about, which illustrates the general situation, took place in the existing system. We are talking about trying to bring in a new system that has a new focus, that involves things such as local place plans and which is, crucially, more collaborative. That collaboration involves not only local authority planning and communities but all of the stakeholders. The fact that decision making will be upstreamed from the outset should lead to more certainty that proposals in a development plan will be those that will move forward. That is a radically different approach.

As I said, achieving that approach and committing to it is a lot more radical than tinkering with appeal rights.

Monica Lennon

In a situation in which, for example, a development plan zones a piece of land for incineration, and there is certainty in the plan—in the context of Scottish planning policy and the criteria about the proximity of incinerators to people’s homes—are we saying that the route by which the community can have its voice heard involves coming up with a local place plan that tries to argue that something other than incineration should happen in that area? We are not changing the plan-led system. We will still have a plan-led system and national guidance. Therefore, what in the bill will give our constituents a different experience from that which they have under the present system?

The Convener

If other panel members would like to come in on that question, they can do so. I know that Mr Wightman has a question, and I want to make sure that he has time to ask it.

Kate Houghton

Local place plans are important but, for me, even more important is getting the engagement right in the local development plan and ensuring that a priority in the early stages of the local development plan is getting collaboration from all stakeholders, including communities of place and of interest.

Monica Lennon

Stuart Tait

That is the core resource in terms of those who are employed in the strategic development planning authorities, but those authorities rely on joint working with local authorities to supplement that resource to deliver the plans, working with the wider stakeholders. Because of joint working, we can reach into local authorities to pull in expertise as we require it.

The Convener

Given the time, we must end this session. I say to all our witnesses that they should continue their relationship with the committee and write to us if they have additional observations. There is much to discuss about the bill. We could have discussed equal rights of appeal or place planning for the entire two hours. Unfortunately, however, this is just how it works. Thank you for your patience and your time on what is now this afternoon, not this morning.

We now move into private session for agenda item 2.

13:12 Meeting continued in private until 13:14.

7 March 2018

Third meeting transcript

The Convener (Bob Doris)

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2018 of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, tablets may be used by some members during the meeting.

We have received no apologies—we have a full house of MSPs today, I am delighted to say. Agenda item 1 is on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. The committee will take evidence on the bill at stage 1 from two panels.

I welcome our initial panel this morning—Graeme Purves, chair of the Built Environment Forum Scotland; Diarmid Hearns, head of policy, National Trust for Scotland; Aileen MacKenzie, planning manager, Scottish Water; and Aedán Smith, convener of the planning group at Scottish Environment LINK. I thank all of you for coming along to aid us in our scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. Andy Wightman will start the questioning.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I have some questions on the national planning framework and strategic development plans. The bill makes quite important changes to the status of those. It makes the NPF part of the development plan and there are amendments to the scrutiny of that. The bill also abolishes strategic development plans, which are to be replaced by a more flexible duty to co-operate. What are panel members’ views on those changes and whether they will help to deliver better places?

Graeme Purves (Built Environment Forum Scotland)

I am happy to kick off on that. I will just give some background—I was a professional planner in local government and central Government for some 29 years. Latterly, I was an assistant chief planner with the Scottish Government and I led the teams that prepared the first and second national planning frameworks.

I am concerned that the proposals relating to the NPF could result in an overcentralised system and that, rather than enhancing the status of the NPF, we risk overburdening it and loading too much on to it. The bill seems to envisage loading Scottish planning policy, which is non-spatial policy, in with the NPF.

There also seems to be an intention to place a regional dimension of strategic planning in the national planning framework. There is a risk that that will make the document overloaded and unwieldy. There is a further risk that the process will be overcentralised, that we will lose the strength of regional agency that we have had in Scotland for a long time and that the national planning framework will lose its cutting edge and become a general repository for planning policy rather than a document that is clearly focused on setting out a long-term spatial strategy for Scotland.

Aedán Smith (Scottish Environment LINK)

Scottish Environment LINK is supportive of having a national planning framework. We think that it is important to have a national spatial strategy to help to decide where the big things are going to go across Scotland and to have a long-term vision about how to make Scotland a more sustainable place. However, some of the changes are a little concerning. Although it is good to have a national planning framework that takes a long-term view of where Scotland wants to go, shifting to a 10-year cycle is a bit of a worry, as things can change a lot in 10 years. What was happening 10 years ago in the planning world? Donald Trump was getting planning consent for his golf course in Aberdeenshire. It is hard to imagine that happening now—things have moved on quite a lot. I am not sure that shifting to a 10-year cycle is necessarily a good thing, although I believe that a long-term vision should be set out in the national planning framework.

We think that including Scottish planning policy in the national planning framework risks overloading it. At the moment, Scottish planning policy sets out different sorts of specific criteria-based policies, whereas the national planning framework is much more spatial, as Graeme Purves described. There is a risk of making the document quite heavy and burdensome.

The other disadvantage of including Scottish planning policy in the national planning framework is that it would mean that it is likely that there would be only one consultation on SPP and the NPF together, whereas, at the moment, they are consulted on separately, which gives communities and others an opportunity to get involved in thinking about what the criteria policies mean, separate from what the spatial strategy means. There is also, at the moment, an opportunity for an environmental assessment of those.

Likewise, we are a bit worried about the implications of including strategic planning in the national planning framework. We are pretty neutral on where strategic planning sits, but we think that there is an essential role for strategic planning at a regional level—that is, a sub-national but greater than local level. As they stand at the moment, the proposals are a bit unclear about how that would be safeguarded.

Although we are neutral on the question of whether regional planning and strategic development plans sit within the national planning framework or sit with local authorities, as they do at the moment, they definitely need to be dealt with somehow.

There are other issues where we think that there might be opportunities in relation to the national planning framework. There should be clear links across to other sectors of spatial planning in Scotland, particularly marine planning and agriculture, forestry and other areas of land use, through the land use strategy. Taken together, the land use strategy, the national marine plan and the national planning framework create a holistic mission for Scotland, so they need to be thought about in a consistent way.

Even more important, the national planning framework sets out a long-term vision for how we might want to make Scotland a better place in future, yet it sits quite separate from the budgeting process at the moment. The last two national planning frameworks have both been introduced with a phrase that ministers have included, which states that the national planning framework is a spatial expression of the Government’s economic strategy. It makes sense to have a link between the Government’s economic strategy and the spatial vision for the sort of place that we want Scotland to be. However, to have the long-term vision being the spatial expression of a shorter-term budget-setting strategy seems to be the wrong way round. We think that it would be much more sensible if the budgeting process were to follow the long-term vision for a future Scotland that is set out in the national planning framework. Therefore, we are keen to see that link between shorter-term budget setting and the longer-term vision for how we are making Scotland a sustainable place, which can be set out in the national planning framework.

Aileen MacKenzie (Scottish Water)

With regard to regional planning, we have concerns that some of the experience that we have built up in recent years and the relationships that we have with some of the strategic development planning authorities might be lost. We have worked quite closely with them, as we have done with other key agencies, to ensure that they have been informed and have had direction.

We need to ensure that those relationships are maintained and that we do not lose them as we go forward. We use some of those outputs to give us a guide to where we will invest in the longer term. Although they do not give us the numbers that the local development plans give, they give us an idea of where areas might expand in the future, so they can help us with our longer-term investment planning.

We also want delivery plans linked more closely with the city deals. At the moment, there are city deals in similar regions, but they are not necessarily joined up. There are some places where the developments link in, but linking city deals with delivery plans would be a useful way of progressing.

We support having some Scottish planning policies decided at a higher level. There are different policies, for example on flooding and drainage, in every local development plan. Some elements of those policies could be taken at a higher level, to allow local development plans to focus on more specific issues within an area. We want surface water management to be considered much earlier in the process. Again, it could help if that was part of the national planning framework and Scottish planning policy.

Diarmid Hearns (National Trust for Scotland)

I echo what has been said, but I have some concerns about transparency. At the moment, there is an opportunity to consult in the regional plan. If we moved to a more laissez-faire arrangement, there is no indication that the public would definitely have an opportunity to have a view. Similarly, public awareness of the NPF is very low. We measured that 11 per cent of the public had heard of it. National developments all happen in local places, so it is a concern if people are not aware that the developments will impact on them.

It is important that Parliament scrutinises a higher number of developments. In that regard, it might be worth looking at the Welsh experience. From the beginning, its national plan had developments baked into it. Under the statutory requirements, the Welsh Government has to consider, and give a response to, each of the recommendations of the National Assembly for Wales. When it first started life, our NPF was more visionary, and it has now evolved into something more deliberate. Scrutiny needs to go alongside that.

Aedán Smith

Diarmid Hearns has reminded me of one extra point. The proposals would make the NPF more powerful than it is at the moment. The proposals in the bill to extend parliamentary scrutiny from 60 days to 90 days are welcome, but we think that Parliament needs to be involved much more than just through those extra days of scrutiny. In fact, there should be an approval process in Parliament so that the national planning framework is owned and approved by Parliament, rather than it just being a vehicle of Government. It should be a document for all of Scotland, rather than just for the Government.

Graeme Purves

I would like to come back briefly on the important point that Aedán Smith made about the link between the national planning framework and national budgeting. There is a narrative around the need to enhance the status of the national planning framework. My feeling is that the national planning framework has not lacked status in the planning system; it is generally accepted as being an important policy document in planning decision making, certainly at local government level. However, the national planning framework has perhaps lacked status in the Government and in national budgeting. If we want to enhance the status of the document, we should focus on that area.

Andy Wightman

The policy memorandum to the bill says:

“national developments are accorded the same status as the development plan in planning decisions.”

However, my understanding is that planning authorities have to take account of the national planning framework only in drafting their development plan. I do not want to have a seminar on what the national planning framework is but, clearly, the Government views this as a technical change. It sees the national planning framework as having the same status, if the bill is passed as drafted, as it does at the moment. Aedán Smith talked about enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, but my understanding is that the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 says that Parliament can merely look at the national planning framework, scrutinise it, debate it and pass a motion on Parliament’s response to it—but that is not a law. Is there a danger, in making the national planning framework part of the development plan, that it would sit uncomfortably with local development plans, which have much more democratic input? Am I overworrying?

09:15

Aedán Smith

I am happy to provide a quick comment on that. Making the NPF part of the development plan would certainly give it an enhanced status over what it has at the moment, albeit that it already has quite a strong status in planning decision making. Making it part of the development plan would make it the first port of call, if you like, when planning decisions are being made, because planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the moment, the NPF is perhaps a second-tier thing to be looked at in planning decisions, although development plans are still required to have quite a lot of regard for it.

That change is just one of the areas where the proposals make the national planning framework quite a bit more powerful and possibly shift a little bit of the balance of decision making towards the Scottish Government and away from local levels. That is why we think that it is critical that the national planning framework gets the sign-off and approval of Parliament. That would not give the national planning framework in itself the same status as a law, but it would put in law a requirement for it to be approved by Parliament before it could progress. It would at least give Parliament that democratic oversight of the framework as a whole. At the moment, the Government has to lay it before Parliament and have regard to Parliament’s views, but it does not necessarily have to have regard to all of them—to a certain extent, it can pick and choose which of the Parliament’s comments to take up.

Graeme Purves

I watched the committee’s evidence session last week and I saw Mr Wightman refer to this matter then. On the process of parliamentary scrutiny, there is an important provision in the existing legislation that ministers are required to report back to Parliament on how they have taken account of the national planning framework, and that is not a perfunctory process. I know that because I drafted the report to Parliament on behalf of ministers. Significant changes were made to the second national planning framework in the light of the Parliament’s views. Two new national developments were added and a couple of others were adjusted.

In that context, the process of scrutiny is carried out diligently, and the evidence is that ministers have listened carefully to what Parliament has said and taken significant elements of that on board. That might be instructive when we discuss how the bill might give some local force to local place plans. Perhaps we will come to that later.

The Convener

I assure you that we will definitely come to that later.

I have a question to mop up before we move to the next line of questioning. Is there a general consensus among the witnesses that there should be greater parliamentary scrutiny of the national planning framework? The ultimate option would be that it had to be approved by Parliament, but Mr Purves seemed to suggest that there could be a variance to that, or a more meaningful role for Parliament without the NPF going to it for approval. I want to understand whether there are any other options. Is the choice between the current system and approval by Parliament, or is there something in between that could be done? If so, will you put that on the record so that we know what it would be?

Graeme Purves

I did not intend to suggest that there was something in between. I think that Mr Wightman is entirely correct. At the moment, ministers have the final say on the national planning framework, but there are provisions on scrutiny and a requirement on ministers to report back to Parliament on how they have taken account of the plan. I am relaxed about whether the national planning framework should be approved by Parliament, but ministers may be less relaxed about that.

The Convener

Our perspective is that communities should be involved much earlier in the planning process through the development of the local development plan. That would mean that everybody is working with the same information and understanding as we go through the process. There should also be clear delivery plans for the local development plans, which would help communities understand what is going to be done to address any concerns that might have come up, such as those to do with infrastructure—that way there will be clarity. Those delivery plans should be updated regularly as we progress with what we have to do or when developers have to do something, so that communities can see that any concerns are being addressed as we progress through those plans.

The Convener

Are there other thoughts on that question?

Diarmid Hearns

The idea of a local place plan is definitely a positive. The issues with it are to do with resources, as other witnesses have identified, and its status in relation to the local development plan. For it to have value, it would have to be comprehensive—all communities would have to have it—and it should come within the local development plan.

I think that the local place plan has potential for expansion. A lot of the issues around quality of place are about how places are managed—about neglect and dereliction. A local place plan could be a way of capturing what the community wants to see in terms of management as well as physical assets. It could also be a boost to community councils. A lot of people are sceptical about community councils, but it is a chicken-and-egg situation. If community councils do not have any powers, people do not take an interest. Perhaps the local place plan could be a way of devolving power to community councils so that they have a stronger local voice. Our research is finding that people feel very disconnected from the local planning system; the local place plan could be a way back into it for them.

Graeme Purves

In relation to local place plans, BEFS shares what is quite a widespread concern about resourcing. Local place plans could have a valuable role in ensuring that community aspirations are given due weight in the local development plan process, but in the current climate we are concerned that they simply might not be adequately resourced to allow them to function successfully.

On whether a requirement to “have regard to” the local place plan is sufficient, our view is that it is not. It comes back to my point about the requirement on the Scottish ministers to report back on the national planning framework, to Parliament in that case. As the convener and, I think, Sarah Boyack said last week, it might be appropriate to place a requirement on the local authority to report back, perhaps at the examination stage, on how it has had regard to the local place plan. Even that would not be a fail-safe mechanism though; a sufficiently brazen authority could say that it had had regard to it, was not impressed by it and did not intend to take anything on board. What happens in that situation?

Aedán Smith

The idea behind local place plans has some merit, but the way in which they are formulated in the bill does not make it clear how they would be resourced, from either a community perspective or a local authority perspective. The fact that they are not part of the local development plan means that they are likely to be given pretty limited weight, and we think that there is a risk that, as formulated, they could end up being quite a distraction from engagement in the local development plan. We are not keen on them as they are currently being progressed. We would much rather see a concentration on getting better engagement in the local development plan process.

Alexander Stewart

You have identified community engagement in the community bodies that are out there. You have touched on community councils, but they are not always representative of a community, although they may be a snapshot of a community. The issue is trying to ensure that a community feels that it is engaging. What support should community bodies have to ensure that they feel they are part of that process?

Diarmid Hearns

It would be primarily financial support to buy in contracts to do the plans or to develop the skills to do it themselves. The financial memorandum does a good job of identifying the minimum costs, and we agree that that would be the bare minimum needed. To do it on a comprehensive basis would be quite expensive up front.

Aileen MacKenzie

The Convener

I am glad that you put that on the record.

Graham Simpson

The National Trust for Scotland did some research that found that 60 per cent of Scots felt that they had no influence over planning decisions affecting their local area. You say that the proposals in the bill do not address that dissatisfaction; in fact, several proposals appear to increase the role of central Government and the distance between decision makers and those who are affected. All the panellists have touched on that area, and we discussed local place plans.

How do you think that the bill could close the gap between communities and the system? How could communities become more involved so that, at the end of the process, we do not get a demand for rights of appeal? We will discuss rights of appeal later on. If we get the system right at the start, those demands might be diminished.

The Convener

As we will come on to that later, it is up to the witnesses what they want to put on the record at this point. Given that we are trying to scrutinise local place plans and local development plans, comments in that context would be helpful.

Graeme Purves

I reiterate what Aileen MacKenzie said about that. If we are concerned about the effectiveness of introducing local place plans, it might be better to focus on ensuring that the local community input is right at the front of the local development plan process and plays a central part in that. Effort should be focused on ensuring that the local community has input at the heart of the planning process right at the start.

The Convener

I see nodding heads.

Diarmid Hearns

We have touched on the role of local place plans in encouraging better local engagement. A deep philosophical point has been raised, in the sense that, as a country—along with England, Ireland and Wales—we are fairly unique in having a discretionary planning system in which the plan is quite indicative. In other countries, the plan has a more regulatory role—in other words, the plan says what will happen. If we went in that direction, that would give greater certainty to developers and communities on what might or might not happen.

That might be one of the answers to Graham Simpson’s question. If people are consulted up front and we specify what will happen, people will have greater confidence in the process, but if we have limited engagement and the system still does not bind what comes forward, we will have the same, or even greater, levels of dissatisfaction. Some elements will be left to secondary legislation, but in some parts of the bill an opportunity is being lost for people to have a voice.

Aedán Smith

I reiterate what other panel members have said. Our big worry is that local place plans, as they are currently formulated, could exacerbate the existing problems rather than help to address them. We need to get some of the good elements of enabling communities to get involved in planning their local places built properly into the development plan in a meaningful way, instead of suggesting that communities can have an influence, only for that to be blocked at the last moment after they have made a lot of effort, which is what might happen.

We will probably get on to some of the underlying issues such as appeal rights and so on.

The Convener

We will move on to those issues later. I am trying to lead the discussion in a structured fashion. Mr Wightman has a supplementary question on local place plans and development plans.

Andy Wightman

It is fair to say that we have not encountered a great deal of enthusiasm for local place plans as they are framed in the bill. We have spoken to communities in Linlithgow and Skye, and we have been sent a local place plan from Harris that shows that there is the capacity, enthusiasm and willingness for local people to engage in planning their own places—indeed, I think that area plans were part of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

We need to recommend to Parliament what to do about local place plans, so I ask the witnesses to be quite frank. You seem to be pretty sceptical about the plans as they are. Should we recommend to Parliament that we drop them? Should we recommend to Parliament that we significantly enhance them? The Scottish alliance for people and places says that they should be part of the local development plans. Should we do something else? We need to know what recommendation we should make to Parliament.

Aileen MacKenzie

Trying to get the local place plans more into local development plans seems the most logical thing to do. We need the best route for the resources. Everybody who puts in should put in to one place. Having everything in one plan rather than in two types of plan would probably reduce the potential for conflicting messages.

Diarmid Hearns

I agree that local place plans should be built into local development plans. A lot of the preamble to the bill has been very much about housing, but our research found that green space, public facilities and transport are all very important to people. The plan process will provide the chance to include those other things that are perhaps not thought about by private developers. The process will provide the chance for the public to say what public assets they want.

Graeme Purves

I agree with the other witnesses about the need to improve the development plan. Mr Simpson alluded to the research that the National Trust for Scotland undertook on how people felt about the planning system. The Scottish Government commissioned research on engagement in the planning system, which Nick Wright and John Lord undertook last year. BEFS hosted an event about that research, and it was clear that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the level of engagement in the planning system. We need to focus on how we can improve that in local development plans. There are well-tried mechanisms, such as charrettes, for engagement that could be deployed much more effectively to ensure that community aspirations and perspectives are fully integrated in the process.

Aedán Smith

Some of the changes that are proposed in the bill are quite complicated and far reaching, so thinking on the matter is still evolving to a large extent. Our view on local place plans, as they are currently proposed, is that they could frustrate, and increase disillusionment with, the system if they are not able to deliver. They definitely need to be part of the development plan.

I was quite interested in Graeme Purves’s comments about perhaps there being a role for local place plans earlier in the process, when we are looking at the diagram that ministers have set out. That warrants additional thought. Perhaps we could come back to the committee on that issue once members have considered it. As they are currently constituted in the bill, we are worried about local place plans progressing and raising false expectations. They need to be more formally part of the development plan.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I want to follow on from Aedán Smith’s point and think about the lifespan of the development plan. We will shift to a 10-year plan. In Motherwell, at one of the committee’s engagement events, John McNairney, the chief planner, said that if a number of local place plans were coming forward perhaps at a mid-point in the life of the development plan, that could indicate that the development plan needed a refresh. That might be healthy but, if local place plans survive in the bill, should there be limits on when they can be initiated? Likewise, if local place plans were brought forward towards the very end of a local development plan’s shelf life, could they collide with the next phase of development planning and quickly become superseded? Should any limits be placed on the time in the process when local place plans can be brought forward?

09:45

Diarmid Hearns

It depends on what for. The local place plan might be a good vehicle to bring in the community on a lot of different issues. Perhaps it could be a living document that the community adds to and adapts as it goes along and as issues arise. Those might not just be planning issues; they might be about neglect, dereliction or things that the community wants to be progressed.

Many of the local authority issues just now concern budgeting—what is being upgraded and what is being taken away—so perhaps it is a good thing to have a repository for views about local place. The elements that relate to planning can be brought to the local development plan. However, there is a chicken-and-egg problem in that community councils are a natural level for that but are not very representative. People are not interested in them because they do not have many powers. Perhaps that is a way of breaking the log jam.

Monica Lennon

Is there a danger that what you have described could simply become an expensive wish list?

Diarmid Hearns

It could do, but we are moving towards more participatory budgeting, which involves communities identifying what resources they have. There have been complaints about nimbyism—communities blocking development—but if people can better relate to the benefit that development brings to the community, perhaps they would be more pro developments. Unless we ask, we will not find out.

The Convener

You have stimulated interest among all the witnesses now.

Aedán Smith

That illustrates the question of whether moving to a 10-year cycle is even appropriate for local plans. In some ways, 10 years is not a long time in planning, which takes a long-term view, but, in other ways, it can be quite a long time. If we have stuck with a five-year cycle, we should certainly incorporate local place plans into that.

Shifting to a 10-year cycle is an interesting proposal because, when we talked about the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill 12 or so years ago, there was a feeling that 10 years was too long for a plan cycle and that we needed them to be a bit shorter, so it was decided that we would go with five years. I am not sure that things have changed so much over the past 10 or 12 years that it is now definitely okay to go for 10 years. Therefore, there are questions about whether shifting to the 10-year cycle is appropriate. If communities feel the need to produce a place plan to update the development plan, perhaps we should focus on changing the development plan sooner.

Aileen MacKenzie

There is a question about how we get from the plan to the development on site. We have spent the past few years focusing a lot on engaging and consulting on plans but perhaps not so much on the delivery of the sites. There is a bit of work to do with the community on that.

Some sites take 10 years to build out, so how do we keep the conversation going? It is not just about how we keep it going when the plan is out for consultation but about how we keep the communities engaged all the way through the process and ensure that everything is updated. We need the plans to give communities certainty. As an infrastructure provider, we also need them to give us certainty about where development will happen. However, things change, so there is a need to continue to engage and keep the plans up to date as we go through development rather than just focusing on making the plan.

Graeme Purves

Aedán Smith’s point about the time periods—whether we go for a five-year or 10-year cycle—is interesting. There might have been an argument for sticking with a five-year cycle in local development plans and, rather than doing away with the strategic development plans, moving them on to a 10-year cycle. One of the reasons that strategic development plans fell out of favour was that, on their second or third iteration, the strategic development plan teams, which had previously been structure plan teams, had got those regional strategies more or less right and not a lot of tinkering needed to be done. However, the statutory provisions forced them back on to the review treadmill when they would have been better focusing on delivery.

Your comments suggest that the requirement for development plans to have regard to local place plans is not strong enough. Should local place plans have regard to development plans? If development plans move to a 10-year cycle, when communities start on their local place plans, should they be informed and take cognisance of development plans before they start, or should they start with a blank sheet of paper?

I want to pin down that two-way process. If local place plans are refreshed every five years and the development plan is refreshed every 10 years, the two documents could talk to and help inform each other. Should local place plans have regard to the development plan at the start of the process or does that not give communities the flexibility that they need?

Graeme Purves

I will take a stab at that, although I am not sure how far I will get. Smart local place planning would have regard to the local development plan. If a community set out to develop a plan that took no heed whatsoever of what was in place, it would face a rockier road than if it had regard to what was already in the development plan and what was likely to emerge from it. That does not mean that the community could not develop its own strong perspective, but it would be wise for it to have regard to the development plan.

The Convener

My clerking team, who always know more about the bill than I do, have just shown me that the bill already says that the local place plan must do that.

Let us save time and move on. I want to explore the infrastructure levy. The bill provides an enabling power, rather than introducing the levy, but to what extent will the proposed levy help to fund the infrastructure that will be necessary to unlock additional development sites? That is what the infrastructure levy would be there to do.

Aileen MacKenzie

There is a lack of clarity about how that would work and whether it would address some of the infrastructure issues. For example, we have our own infrastructure charge and we provide a reasonable costs contribution to any infrastructure that has to be provided. A lot of the challenges tend to be around education and other areas but, from the discussions that I have been involved in, I am not sure that the issues that are there at the moment are being unlocked. Issues around new funding are not really part of that.

We need to understand more about the issues, but I do not see the challenges being addressed at the moment.

The Convener

How would Scottish Water prioritise infrastructure investment, and what role could an infrastructure levy play in that? Currently, you have to source funding and finance to deliver infrastructure. What are the challenges around that? How are you getting on with that? What impact would the proposal for the levy have on Scottish Water?

Aileen MacKenzie

Our infrastructure is split into a number of parts. Scottish Water is funded to provide additional capacity at water treatment works and waste-water treatment works, which we class as part 4. If the development is in the local development plan, there are various other criteria. There are challenges associated with that around timing and so on. We are working on those at the moment.

What is proposed in the bill looks useful to an extent, although it is not completely revolutionary. From our point of view, it is critically important that it extends to cover green infrastructure—places for wildlife, green spaces for recreation and other infrastructure that contributes to high-quality places. The bill does not seem to do that just now, which was a bit surprising to us, because we know that the consultants’ report that was commissioned by the Scottish Government to inform thinking around the matter said that green infrastructure should be covered.

Graeme Purves

I have a similar perspective. BEFS’s members see the infrastructure levy as being potentially helpful, but there is quite widespread scepticism about whether the levy will be enough in itself and quite a strong feeling that we should look for a mechanism to capture the uplift in land values to fund the infrastructure that we require to support new development.

10:00

The Convener

Mr Purves, it is almost as though you guessed what my next question was, and I suspect that Mr Wightman wanted to ask a question along similar lines. Whether or not the infrastructure levy goes ahead, what other mechanisms out there would help to raise finance? Mr Purves was starting to explore that, but would anyone else like to comment?

Diarmid Hearns

The experience has been quite interesting in England, which has a community infrastructure levy. The levy has collected a lot less money than was expected, is seen as being quite partial and inconsistent and perhaps disadvantages smaller developers. There are quite a few useful lessons to draw from that levy.

The point has been made about how local place plans connect to development plans. Local place plans can help to flesh out the impacts of developments. Obviously, there is the hard infrastructure relating to water, gas and so on, but there is also the impact on public services, cultural facilities and green spaces. Local place plans might help local people to articulate better their understanding of the impact of developments and the support that a levy could offer.

There is also a big question about whether the levy would help to direct development to areas that were infrastructure ready or whether it would be a way of compensating in areas that were not to be funded for development. That should be thought through.

The Convener

Mr Wightman has a question about other mechanisms for raising funds for infrastructure—for example, land value capture.

Andy Wightman

It has been drawn to my attention by a few witnesses, including City of Edinburgh Council, which will be here later, that the levy would generate £75 million. I think that that figure is from the Scottish Government’s study. City of Edinburgh Council says that the infrastructure bill for delivering the development that is provided for in the Edinburgh local development plan alone is £450 million, and I think that it has been calculated that the infrastructure levy would raise a maximum of 1 per cent of the required infrastructure costs throughout Scotland.

Is it even worth bothering with the levy? We have had evidence from England that the levy is a bit complex and that there are issues about how it would interact with section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. There is a paper out this morning from the Scottish Land Commission—“The Delivery of Public Interest Led Development in Scotland”—that is much more focused on having a development model in which the public lead, which would capture the value that could then fund the infrastructure, than on having a potentially complex levy on the private sector that would not raise much money. Is it worth considering rejecting the whole notion, given how little it would raise?

Graeme Purves

That is a legitimate point, although it is not a position that BEFS has taken formally. I would say that meeting housing need and creating places of quality are public objectives and that the public sector really needs to lead on those issues. We talk rather glibly about having a plan-led system in Scotland but, in many ways, it is a developer-led system in which we try to extract public benefit and public good from private developers, which is not entirely fair on them. We should look for a mechanism with which to capture the uplift in land value to fund the public goods that we are looking for out of the planning system.

Aedán Smith

On whether the levy is more hassle than it is worth, we would be worried that, if we were to lose the levy, there would be nothing else there, so it is probably worth trying to progress it and get something out of it. However, a wider discussion is needed about how we get some of our critical infrastructure funded and how we cover the costs.

Graham Simpson

Green infrastructure has been mentioned, but I note that the bill contains no references to green spaces, the environment or heritage. Given that a number of you have highlighted the issue in your submissions, I wonder whether you can address that general point about the lack of reference to the environment and heritage, after which we will talk about simplified development zones.

Diarmid Hearns

It comes back to what the purpose of planning is. As other witnesses and committee members have identified, what we are trying to achieve in the round has not been set out. For our research, we asked people what issues they would like the planning system to address, and the answers that we got were quite varied. It was not just housing, which is what the preamble to the bill has been very much about—it is important to remember that most of the houses that we have are already built, and the number of additional housing units is about 16,000 a year, which is less than 1 per cent of the current housing stock. Having really good-quality places is about a lot more than housing, so it would be good if there were recognition of green spaces, cultural facilities and so on.

That also brings us back to the issue of planning protections. Our research looked at people’s satisfaction with the way in which green spaces and places of local historical character are being protected, and we found that fewer than half of them were satisfied in that respect. There is more work to be done on the protections for what we have, and we are concerned that they might get watered down by some elements of the bill.

Aedán Smith

We, too, have picked up on that issue. We would like to see some overarching purpose that would set the context for the planning system, particularly if it was along the lines of its seeking to achieve sustainable development.

On the specific issue of green networks, Scottish Environment LINK would be keen to see some form of mitigation hierarchy embedded in the planning system to ensure that any impacts on the natural environment were, in effect, offset elsewhere. There is a requirement to avoid such impacts in the first instance, but, where they can be justified, there should be some mechanism in place to offset them and, if there are any negatives, to add some positives back on to what you might call the green balance sheet. In short, we would like to see in the bill some mechanism for putting back anything that might be taken away from the natural environment.

Graeme Purves

I am not sure whether the bill needs to refer specifically to green infrastructure, but I agree with other panel members about the need for a clear purpose for planning. As a number of organisations that have given evidence have suggested, such a purpose might be based on the United Nations sustainable development goals.

However, it is clear that people in Scotland generally—and specifically this Parliament—regard green infrastructure as an important issue. I have already mentioned the changes that were made to the second national planning framework following parliamentary scrutiny, one of which was the elevation of the central Scotland green network to the status of a national development as a result of strong cross-party support in the Parliament with regard to the importance of green infrastructure and the need for that kind of commitment.

Graham Simpson

That final point is interesting, because I have previously suggested that the central Scotland green network should be a statutory consultee, which it is not at the moment. It should probably also get more money, but that is a more controversial view.

As drafted, the bill allows simplified development zones to be set up pretty much anywhere. At the moment, simplified planning zones cannot be set up in certain areas such as the green belt, conservation areas and national scenic areas, but those protections do not exist in the bill at the moment. The obvious question is whether those protections should be in there.

The Convener

The witnesses are nodding their heads.

Aedán Smith

We are a bit worried about those protections being removed. We think that they should be retained, and we were a bit surprised by what is in the bill. In the run-up to the bill, some work on simplified development zones was carried out by consultants that were commissioned by the Scottish Government, and their assumption was that protected areas—particularly wildlife sites—would be excluded from this provision. That those protections seem to have been removed in the bill is a bit of a surprise and a worry, and we would like them to be reinstated.

On a more strategic level, we think that it would be much better to bring forward the simplified development zones specifically through the development plan. To a certain extent, the development plan process could be undermined because of the flexibility that is given to creating simplified development zones at the moment if they do not have the wider context that could be provided by the development plan.

Graeme Purves

BEFS members share the concern about simplified development zones including protected or designated areas. We are not in favour of that. One of my concerns is the clinging on to the word “simplified”, which takes us all the way back to the 1980s and the original simplified planning zones in the year of Nicholas Ridley, which was a long time ago now. In fact, they might not be terribly simple but it may be worth taking them forward.

There is rhetoric in the policy memorandum about planning being about place making and about place making being important, but there is relatively little follow-through in terms of the provisions of the bill directly relating to place making. If we are repurposing simplified planning zones or simplified development zones, it might be better—if we are clear about what our purpose is—to call them place development plans and to focus on place making, whether that is place making on a greenfield site or renewing an existing place. That might be worth considering.

Aileen MacKenzie

We need a bit more clarity about what would need to be done in setting up the simplified development zones. A number of studies would need to be undertaken to enable us and other infrastructure providers to understand the impact of development in an area. Sometimes, those studies can be done at the right time but, if there is a big time lag between those studies and other development coming forward or something changing in an area, what needs to be done with that area can change.

We need a bit more clarity around some of that and around what the zones would be allowing, so that we can make sure that we can support them. However, we cannot, for example, reserve capacity for development or for anybody. We need to be able to understand the process a little bit more as it develops.

Aedán Smith

I will follow up Graeme Purves’s well-made point that simplified development zones might not be all that simple. Simplified development zones would, in effect, grant planning permission for areas in quite general terms, and detailed environmental assessment work would need to be done when they were created. The burden of that might fall on local planning authorities. At the moment, the burden falls to developers, but it might well fall on local planning authorities, and the amount of work that might be required could be significant. There could be pressure to reduce the scrutiny that is given to those areas, which would be a real concern for us. There are question marks about whether the zones would be any simpler; in fact, there is a risk that they might complicate matters.

Diarmid Hearns

I echo those comments. It is about front loading rather than simplifying, and we are concerned about the loss, on the face of it, of the existing protections. The policy memorandum talks about having procedures that closely mirror existing procedures, which sounds like a downgrade. I want the same application procedures to be in place, whether or not the process is simplified.

There will also be a challenge in applying the process to urban areas, which I think is part of the intention. It is basically about trying to guess what the future use might be. In Renfrew, for example, what we have had is quite limited; it is basically in three streets and involves shop frontages and change of use in two or three categories. I am not sure that the process has the capacity to work on a complex urban site. That is probably more about masterplanning than it is about an SDZ.

Graeme Purves

Can I return to the question of the relationship between simplified development zones and the development plan? That is where I lost my thread earlier. The relationship is important. A number of organisations that have submitted evidence have said that it is important that the zones are embedded in the development plan process or come out of the local plan, and that is correct, to an extent. However, I see them coming out of the development process or strategic development planning at the regional level, so that they would often be instruments of regional rather than local planning. I have concerns about the idea that they could just emerge from anywhere—and potentially from left field. They should come out of the strategic planning process.

We can split the difference. If there is a call for sites, as happens in a main issues report at the moment, owners might come forward. For example, Hillington Park is a big industrial estate with a single owner. The owner can probably predict fairly well what kind of development it wants over the next 10 years. Universities might come forward with campus proposals and town centre businesses might have proposals. Groups might come forward with clear ideas of what they would like to do, and they can front load the planning effort. That would be the grass-roots bottom-up response.

Monica Lennon

This is an interesting line of inquiry. The SDZs have a focus on projects and showing that an area is open for development and for business. Over many years of planning, there have been plans in which sites have been allocated and have consent, then nothing happens. We talked earlier about a focus on delivery. Is there anything in the bill that would incentivise or encourage a focus on delivery on sites where there is a need for it and there may already be consent, but because of constraints to do with economic viability or local infrastructure, nothing is happening? Is there a danger that, if we shift the focus to SDZs, we will take our gaze away from the sites where something needs to happen but things are not being pushed in that direction?

I hear tumbleweed.

The Convener

I will let that silence linger, because someone will want to bite. I see that the ever-reliable Mr Smith wants to come in.

Aedán Smith

I am always happy to comment on planning matters. I do not think that there is anything in the bill that would address that. The issue may be beyond the scope of what planning can deliver, and be tied more to land-value issues. It would wrongly raise expectations to suggest that the bill could address such problems, because it will not be able to do that.

The Convener

Before we move on to the next line of questioning, on which our deputy convener will lead, I want to take you back to resourcing. I do not know how I feel about simplified development zones, but I am trying to test the evidence and see where the balance sits.

Earlier, I suggested that SDZs seem to be about enhanced master planning and getting the community on board at an early stage. I can think of sites in my constituency where that would be possible. However, enhanced masterplanning costs money. Where should the financial burden sit if we take a really in-depth, detailed and granular approach to place setting in the context of a simplified development zone, or whatever they are called? Should that tab be picked up by national Government, local government or developers, or should it be shared among them? Is there recognition that if good-quality enhanced master planning were to drive simplified development zones in a way that might be acceptable to communities, it will need to be resourced? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Diarmid Hearns

It is quite hard to extrapolate from the cases that are before us. The Hillington Park example does not include residents, so that element of planning—how it affects people—is missing. The Renfrew simplified development zone cost £15,000, but it was very minimalist—it was just shop fronts and changes of use. We do not have an evidence base to say what it might cost to deliver.

The idea is almost that the public sector should lead the market and try to plan on the basis of guesses as to potential future uses. That might be a stretch, at this point in time.

The Convener

It might be that I am asking questions about things for which there is not enough information, so you cannot answer them.

Aileen MacKenzie

Scottish Water’s perspective is that we need a bit more information about simplified development zones, to inform us.

Graeme Purves

It might be possible to link simplified planning zones with some mechanism for capturing the uplift in land value. Various mechanisms are available. That is something that the Scottish Land Commission is exploring at the moment.

Aedán Smith

If the burden of doing some of the up-front assessment work falls to the public sector—local planning authorities or central Government—and it has already done environmental assessments, for example, and identified the most appropriate sites for development, that might incentivise development in more appropriate places and, in effect, de-risk sites because problems would be less likely to crop up. However, it would depend on the circumstances and the type of development.

Monica Lennon

I want to explore whether a clear statutory purpose and vision for planning should be included in the bill. Graham Simpson touched on that briefly, and we heard views from Graeme Purves and Aedán Smith.

BEFS’s written evidence says:

“The decision to amend the already amended Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 is a missed opportunity to create new planning legislation that has vision and clarity of purpose.”

The National Trust for Scotland submission says:

“The current bill primarily amends existing legislation, rather than delivers a new approach to planning.”

There has been a lot of talk about the potential for the bill to be transformative in that we could promote and elevate place making and take a different approach. Based on the comments that I have picked out from submissions, how confident are you that the bill will be transformative?

Graeme Purves

I have not abandoned hope that the bill could be transformative, but it still needs quite a bit of work. As I have said, BEFS’s members feel that there should be a clear statutory purpose for planning, which could be based on the UN’s sustainable development goals.

Diarmid Hearns

I agree. The policy memorandum has some excellent words, but the text in the explanatory notes to the bill is quite slim and the biggest chunk of it is on simplified development zones. The elements that are missing are a vision and a purpose for planning. They could probably be built in with sustainable development goals.

In our submission, we raise the point that sustainable development goals come with targets, one of which is coming up in 2020. There is a commitment to embed ecosystem services and biodiversity values in local and national planning. Denmark has done that. It has a green map for the whole country, to which the local plans can make reference. The Scottish Government has committed to the sustainable development goals, and the bill is probably the best—and perhaps the only—chance to meet the 2020 target.

10:30

Aedán Smith

I agree with and support that. Scottish Environment LINK thinks that there should be an overarching purpose of achieving sustainable development, so having that overarching purpose tied to the sustainable development goals appears to be the obvious next step forward from the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.

Monica Lennon

In its submission, Scottish Environment LINK says that

“the bill is ... light on measures to deal with climate change”.

Could the bill be changed to support the Government’s emissions reduction targets better? If so, how should it be changed?

Aedán Smith

The bill is light on such measures, which is a missed opportunity because there is a big spatial element to climate change. How we plan our future places can have big implications for climate change. At the development plan and national planning framework levels, there could be a requirement to think actively about how the development strategies could reduce emissions. A requirement to seek to reduce emissions in the plans’ setting out of what our future places will look like would be the most obvious way of doing that.

Monica Lennon

I go back to the point that I made at the beginning about the approach of amending the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Is that approach being taken partly because of the scope of the independent review? Are we tinkering with legislation rather than taking a comprehensive look at the whole planning system? Is there anything that we have not included in the bill that should be included?

Diarmid Hearns

I agree that the bill will amend rather than transform the system. However, quite a number of things are in play already. The national ecological network has been mentioned. The land use strategy, which came out of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, was meant to inform spatial development, but it has stalled because of lack of resources; there have been two good pilots, but it has not been rolled out across the country.

There is also the marine plan and quite a number of other spatial plans that have visions for Scotland and which relate to wider uses, but they have not been brought within the scope of the bill, so it feels as though we are missing a chance to bring things together and integrate them a bit better.

Aedán Smith

Scottish Environment LINK is probably neutral on the pros and cons of having an amending bill rather than a brand-new complete bill, although it is a bit of a nuisance having to tack back to previous legislation to work out the implications. That perhaps indicates that the bill is a bit of a tinkering exercise rather than a comprehensive review of planning.

There is an issue as regards the purpose of planning. We think that introducing a statutory overarching purpose that would set out what planning is for would help to embed the idea of planning being about sustainable development and making places better for as many people as possible, while reconciling competing interests. Basically, it is about making the future Scotland a better place. The fact that the bill has been presented as a set of amendments to historical acts suggests that it is a case of tinkering around the edges rather than the comprehensive review that is required.

The Convener

I have noted that Mr Simpson and Mr Wightman want to ask supplementaries, but the deputy convener is exploring a line of questioning. I ask members to be patient—I will bring them in.

Monica Lennon

I was going to come on to equal right of appeal—I do not know whether Andy Wightman’s or Graham Simpson’s questions are on those points.

The Convener

That is helpful. If members’ points are on equal right of appeal, please wait until our deputy convener explores that issue, then come in.

Graham Simpson

I have a really quick question, which is directed at BEFS. In your written submission, you say that

“legislation without a clearly defined purpose”

could be open “to judicial review”. Why did you say that?

Graeme Purves

To be honest, I am not sure why we said that. [Laughter.] I suppose that if you are not clear about your purpose, you leave yourself more open to such challenges. However, I was not the author of that specific sentence.

Graham Simpson

I see. We will leave it there.

Monica Lennon

Collective responsibility!

Andy Wightman

I want to follow up on Monica Lennon’s question about what is not in the bill. Members of the panel have talked about greater alignment with other bits of Government policy, such as the land use strategy. Is there merit in considering bringing agriculture, hunting and forestry—land uses that have never been in the town and country planning system—into the system in order, for example, to create direct protection forests for vulnerable transport routes or to guide the extent to which whole farms can be converted to forests and other purposes?

Diarmid Hearns

I would definitely say yes. In a way, we have done that to a degree already with green belts, which are partly about containing urban sprawl, partly about providing amenity and partly about conserving high-grade farm land. There was recognition back in 1947 that the green belt is a national resource and is about sustainable development. We have moved away from that: green belt is now seen as being a bit of a constraint on development. We are losing sight of the irreplaceable nature of some natural assets.

There is definitely an argument for the land use strategy to be brought forward and done comprehensively, and for it to be part of the planning system. That will be the foundation of all thinking, whether for communities or developers.

Aedán Smith

To a certain extent, built development being dealt with through the planning system, and agriculture, forestry and marine issues being dealt with separately, is an artificial distinction, because they are all interrelated, so the lack of overlap has been a missed opportunity. In particular, we would be keen, at the higher levels, for the national planning framework and development plans to link more closely with their equivalents. The national planning framework should link with the national marine plan and land use strategy, and there should be greater compatibility than there is.

At the more local level, Diarmid Hearns mentioned green belts which, it is true, overlap with wider land management issues, but there are other areas in which agriculture and forestry stray into planning. For instance, Scottish Environment LINK has been doing a lot of work on hill tracks, which have been a contentious issue because hill tracks can contribute to significant land use change. Planning has a bit of an in there. When we start getting down to such a detailed level, perhaps it is more of a matter for secondary legislation but, in principle, it is important that there is a relationship between planning, agriculture and forestry so that there is influence across the different sectors.

Monica Lennon

You have had a bit of time to think about what I was going to ask about. As you know, equal right of appeal is not in the bill, which would mean that the status quo would prevail. Developers will be able to appeal to the Scottish Government and challenge a decision when a planning application is refused, but communities or third parties—as some refer to them—will not have that right. I know that there is a range of views across the panel on that point.

One of the reasons why an equal right of appeal was not brought in by the 2006 act was the hope that front loading the process—which involves getting things right through early engagement, getting communities around the table early on and communities having a stake in the process—would negate the need to have an appeal at the end of it. However, here we are 12 years on trying to tinker with or transform planning. Has front loading worked for communities, and is it only fair that we now consider equalising appeal rights?

The Convener

Who would like to go first?

Diarmid Hearns

I do not mind doing so, convener.

We are neutral with regard to any solutions, but as part of our research, we asked the straightforward question whether local communities should have the same rights of appeal as developers, and 90 per cent of respondents thought that they should. That is a clear steer from communities that they think that the current system of checks and balances is not working for them. Having equal rights of appeal is kind of an end-of-pipe solution, and if front loading worked, you might not need it.

Anecdotally, I was reading Argyll and Bute Council’s main issues report, in which it pointed out that the majority of housing that had been built in one planning period had been built in areas that had not been zoned for housing in the previous planning period. Front loading does not really seem to be steering development where it is expected to appear, and it is being left to quite a late stage for these things to come forward and, potentially, to be fought.

With regard to issues that have been raised about delays in the planning system, research in England that has focused on housing developments has highlighted three causes of delay, the second-biggest of which was appeals by developers who wanted to get their development through. If the system was more binding on everyone, there might be less of a need for the end-of-pipe solution, but certainly the view at the moment is that there are imbalances in the system.

Aedán Smith

In some ways, this takes us to the root of the purpose of planning and the question of what—and who—the planning system is for. The current system of appeals is heavily weighted in favour of applicants for planning permission. For the avoidance of doubt, no one really wants to get involved with appeals if they can help it. Appeals are really an indicator that something failed earlier in the process.

I welcome the efforts that have gone into increasing front loading. However, although that is all very well, the whole system is actually underpinned by the appeals end of the process. The research that Diarmid Hearns has alluded to has been very interesting in showing the level of disillusionment with the current system, and a lot of that stems from the issue of appeal rights.

As I have said, the current system is weighted in favour of applicants for planning permission. There is effectively a presumption in favour of development; when a developer puts an application into the system, there is already a heavy assumption that the development is going to go ahead. In fact, more than 90 per cent of applications are approved. Even if an application is refused, the applicant can appeal to another organisation—or another part of the council, if it is a local application—and get another shot. Indeed, it is a really easy second shot, because there is no fee associated with it. In short, not only is their first shot heavily weighted in their favour, but they get another shot in which their application is looked at afresh and is again heavily weighted in their favour.

On the other hand, other bodies do not have any equivalent right of challenge, and Scottish Environment LINK feels that a limited but fair and equal right of appeal should be available in certain circumstances, particularly with developments that are contrary to the development plan or are of such significance that they require an environmental impact assessment.

What has been disappointing not only in the bill process but in the planning reform process is the way in which the Scottish Government has been a bit dismissive of what is clearly a problem. We are not saying that there does not need to be any thinking about what might be the most acceptable solution, but we find it really frustrating that the issue has not been explored at all in detail. Introducing this new mechanism—an equal right of appeal—might have additional resource implications, but it is quite telling that those who argue strongly against a right of appeal for communities and others, highlighting the increased bureaucracy and centralisation of decision making that it might result in and the potential to undermine the plan-led system, are actually making quite a good argument against the existing appeals system for applicants for planning permission.

Monica, do you want to follow up on any of that before I let Mr Smith back in?

Monica Lennon

Yes. Earlier in the session, Graeme Purves said that we have a developer-led system rather than a plan-led system. Perhaps that characterisation is due to the fact that most applications are approved—it is more than 96 per cent, I think.

Last week, we had a panel from industry, and the witness from Scottish Renewables talked about the cost of appeals for big projects ranging from tens of thousands of pounds to hundreds of thousands of pounds, and referred to that as planning by appeal. It is almost as though developers at the high end are factoring in appeals—it is another risk that they are prepared to take. With that in mind, is there a level playing field? Do communities stand a chance against organisations and developers who have that kind of resource and professional expertise at their backs?

Diarmid Hearns

It is not just communities but local authorities. Yesterday, we had the final decision on a housing development on the battlefield at Culloden, which was opposed not only by the local community but the council, and which went against local planning. The development has gone through on appeal, so it is not just communities that can find themselves powerless; it can also be our elected representatives.

Aedán Smith

There are a few points there. We think that renewables, particularly big onshore wind farms, should be put forward through a spatially planned approach. If they are in the development plan, there can be a proper debate about where they should go, because of their scale.

Regardless of whether it is renewables or other big developments, there is certainly an inequality of arms. Developers are often much better resourced than not only local communities but local authorities. In the current system, when a local authority is dealing with an application, there is always the concern that, if it is refused, it will be taken out of the local authority’s hands and sent to someone else—often the inquiry reporters unit—to be dealt with. I recall that from my local authority days. If that happens, the local authority has no further scope significantly to influence the application, whereas if it decides to approve it, it at least has a chance to put some conditions on it. There is a weight of pressure on the decision maker at a local planning authority level, because they know that there could be an appeal but that it will only be from the applicant’s side. The pressure comes only from one side. The decision maker knows that there is no possibility of an appeal from a local community group. There is the vague possibility that a community group might take them to court, but because there is a huge cost associated with that, it is highly unlikely, whereas the applicant for planning permission can, for free, have a shot at having second go—that applies to any scale of development—and then the decision will be taken away from the local authority.

Front loading is really useful and can be helpful in resolving a lot of issues. When it works, it is great and developments can be non-contentious; when it does not work, the developer gets a second shot anyway and can apply through appeal to have another go at getting their application through. Furthermore, if it does not work, other parties or bodies—whether they are local communities or communities of interest, which may have a significant interest in the outcome of the decision—have got no further opportunity for significant engagement in challenging the decision.

The Convener

I have a bit of housekeeping. We are coming to the end of our evidence session. The deputy convener wants to follow up on something in relation to this line of questioning and there are bids for supplementary questions. I know that this is an important issue, but brevity would be welcome in order to allow other members to ask their questions.

Monica Lennon

If you want to hear more from us on planning and appeals, I will lead a members’ business debate on the subject at 5 o’clock, in which a few colleagues will be speaking. We will look at what happens when local authorities’ decisions are overturned.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Heads of Planning Scotland are coming in for the next evidence session. Appeals are quite resource intensive for local authorities, and there is always the threat hanging over them that costs could be awarded against them. We have heard about scenarios in which repeat applications are made. An application might be withdrawn and come back in a slightly diluted format, and the local authority will have to do a calculation about a non-determination appeal. A non-determination appeal, which can be made when it is taking too long to get a decision, is another route by which a council can be bypassed, and an application can go to ministers.

If there are no measures in the bill to give communities more rights or to curtail developers’ rights to appeal, are there other measures that we could look at to deal with the issue of repeat applications? What about non-determination, where the clock is ticking, which might reduce a council’s ability to impose conditions and so on?

Aedán Smith

There is a range of options. Repeat applications are a bit of a symptom of the weighting that the current system gives to applicants for planning permission. Other than the fee for a new application, an applicant does not have much to lose by appealing or putting in a repeat application, whereas communities have limited opportunities to get their voices heard and so can feel that they are under real pressure.

The primary way of changing the system would be to introduce an equal right of appeal. There is talk about removing a developer’s right of appeal, which would certainly equalise things. At the moment, there is no right of appeal for parties other than developers. There might be scope to restrict developers’ rights of appeal, whereby developers might be able to appeal only in certain circumstances, such as when a decision is made that is contrary to the development plan.

The fact that, at the moment, there is no fee associated with an appeal is quite an anomaly. There is a fee associated with a planning application, so why is no fee associated with an appeal? If there were such a fee, that might reduce some of the work in that area.

There is a range of options. Scottish Environment LINK’s view is that the process should be equalised through the introduction of an equal right of appeal for other parties, but a range of other measures could be used to improve the balance in the current system, including in relation to repeat applications, which are a particular problem in some areas.

The Convener

Does anyone else want to add anything? I am keen to get what you have to say on the record, but I ask you to be brief.

Diarmid Hearns

The proposal is a potential remedy, but the starting point is a recognition that there is an issue. The fact that there is an issue came through in the independent review, although it did not really delve into that. You should either make things tighter up front, loosen things at the end by giving people more rights of appeal or tighten the existing rights of appeal, but something must be done about it.

Alexander Stewart

You have expanded on the idea of what the right of appeal could be. Obviously, there are major concerns among certain members of the community—we have seen evidence of that. We talk about the right being limited and applying only to certain categories. One category that we have talked about involves cases in which a decision goes against a plan or is a departure from it. Should there be other categories involved in that process?

Aedán Smith

Scottish Environment LINK’s view is that there are two main categories in relation to which there should be scope for other parties to have an opportunity to appeal. One is where a decision is contrary to the development plan; and the other is where an environmental impact assessment is required because there are potentially significant environmental effects. That sort of judgment could be made by professional planning staff—they make such judgments multiple times every day, so I do not think that asking them to perform a quick sense check to establish whether something qualifies under one of those categories would be overly onerous.

The Convener

I have a couple of mopping-up questions. We have heard contradictory and contrasting evidence on an equal right of appeal. Some witnesses have been fundamentally against it, believing that it will slow down development, put house-building targets and the like at risk and damage the economy; and we have heard passionately expressed directly opposing views from people who say that it is important to equalise the right of appeal and give communities more of a say. The committee will have to take a balanced view on the issue before the vote takes place in Parliament, and, at that point, what happens will happen.

Given that the position of the Scottish Government is that the bill front loads the process to a much greater extent than is the case at the moment—Monica Lennon made the point that the 2006 act did not include an equal right of appeal, for very similar reasons—what would successful front loading look like? If an equal right of appeal is not included in the bill and there are no changes in that regard, what kinds of things should our successor committee be looking at in five years’ time to determine whether the front-loading measures have gone well?

Diarmid Hearns

You could approach the issue by working backwards. A study that was done in England in, I think, 2010 on causes of delay in housing development found that the leading cause of delay was lack of capacity within—I stress that that is within, not between—local authorities. Similar developments had different processing times simply because there were not enough staff. The second-biggest cause of delay was found to be appeals by developers—they themselves were causing delays in the system by appealing decisions. The third-biggest cause of delay was the size of developments, because big developments take longer to process.

In five years’ time, your successor committee could ask whether local authorities have enough capacity and skills to do the processing, whether developers have moved away from the use of appeals to get developments through and whether we have a wider mix of developments that includes smaller developments as well as big developments.

The Convener

I have perhaps not been very focused when I have asked my questions this morning. I was trying to ask whether you could say what success would look like in relation to the bill as it stands. How will we be able to tell whether front loading has been successful? If the bill is not changed along the lines that Monica Lennon suggested, should there be a monitoring framework that a future committee of the Parliament could look at to see whether the approach had been successful? What Mr Hearns has said was helpful in that regard. Does anyone have any other thoughts?

11:00

Graeme Purves

Only last year, the Scottish Government commissioned consultants to consider levels of satisfaction with public engagement with the planning system, and the findings were quite stark. We have a baseline, but it is quite a troubling one. You could revisit the sort of questions that were asked in that exercise and see whether there had been any improvement.

The Convener

That is helpful, because it gives us somewhere to go.

Aedán Smith

There is a lot of narrative about the bill aiming to front load the process, but the discussion that we have had today has questioned whether its provisions would amount to front loading in practice.

The issue of what the committee might want to examine in five years’ time concerns outcomes. Five years is a short length of time in terms of building stuff, so those outcomes will only really concern satisfaction, as Graeme Purves suggests—issues such as what the public think about engagement in the process, whether they are content and whether they feel that they are influencing what their places are going to be like in the future.

The Convener

I picked five years because it was a handy number; it could be 10 years, which is the timeframe for the national planning framework or the proposed local development plans.

That leads me nicely to our final question. The national planning framework has a 10-year lifespan. There will be consultation on it and, as we have mentioned today, perhaps parliamentary approval of it. National planning frameworks are not quite set in stone, nor are local development plans. They can change, even though there would be 10-year cycles. If they change within those 10 years, what should be the level of consultation at that point? Do you have any thoughts about parliamentary scrutiny or approval in that regard?

Aedán Smith

We would say that the national planning framework has to be approved by Parliament, and that any changes to it should also be approved by Parliament. Those proposals should go through the same procedures in relation to strategic environmental assessment that they would have to the moment. There should be an environmental assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those changes, and there should be public consultation on the changes.

Diarmid Hearns

I echo that. Public awareness of the national planning framework is low at the moment, so it would be good for that to be raised and for people to be given a voice. In Wales, there is a 12-week period for public comment on developments.

Graeme Purves

I agree with Aedán Smith and Diarmid Hearns.

The Convener

That is my favourite answer of the session.

I thank our witnesses for their time this morning and for helping us to scrutinise the bill, and I invite them to follow the committee’s further work in that regard.

11:02 Meeting suspended.

11:09 On resuming—

The Convener

Welcome back, everyone. We are still on agenda item 1, under which we are looking at the Planning (Scotland) Bill as presented by the Scottish Government to the Parliament.

I welcome our second panel of witnesses. Councillor Steven Heddle is environment and economy spokesperson for COSLA; Robert Gray is chair of Heads of Planning Scotland; Gavin Miles is head of planning and communities for the Cairngorms National Park Authority; David Leslie is chief planning officer for the City of Edinburgh Council; Kate Hopper is senior planning officer for the City of Edinburgh Council; and Ailsa Anderson is a member of the Scottish young planners network steering group.

Obviously, the panel is quite sizeable. We have sought to be as accommodating as possible. If there is largely agreement on an issue, it would help us to get through the issues if people were brief in reinforcing comments that they have heard. Please do not feel as if you need to speak about everything. There is a management issue with such a large panel, and the witnesses’ co-operation would be very welcome.

Graham Simpson

That is good advice for all of us, convener.

I will follow a line of questioning that is different from the one that I pursued with the first panel because the witnesses largely represent the local government sector, and bits of the bill directly affect councils.

Let us consider the idea of a national planning performance co-ordinator and the requirement on councils to issue performance reports that can be scrutinised by the Government. If the Government decided that a council was not performing well enough, it could send in the planning performance co-ordinator. What do you think about that aspect of the bill? Is it right that councils should be judged by the Government? How do you define “performance”? It is not defined in the bill. There is a whole load of questions in there.

Councillor Steven Heddle (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities)

The issue of performance assessment has caused COSLA some disquiet, because we hoped that it could have been discussed and advanced more through the high-level group, so that we could develop a greater understanding of how it might be implemented. There is vagueness about that, so we have concerns.

Robert Gray

Yes. We have always had some form of scrutiny, but the issue is one of proportionality and tone. Over the six years of planning performance frameworks, there has been a really dramatic improvement in planning in Scotland, but we have not flagged it up very well. It is based on a red, amber and green system; six years ago, the number of reds was probably in three figures, and it is now down to single figures. The scrutiny and the fact that everyone has worked together in that context have worked and proved to be successful, and we do not want or need something that is disproportionate. I think that the differences between us are quite subtle, but we agree on the need for a proportionate response.

I very much agree with David Leslie. What tends to be measured is speed and how quickly you can turn something round, but the fact is that if we create places that are inadequate in some way or other, we have failed. We would rather be measured on a balance of outcomes and speed. We understand the need for streamlining and speed, but it is not the entire story—the outcome is actually far more important.

The Convener

It was really helpful to get that on the record.

Alexander Stewart

The expressions of disquiet and concern about this are understandable, because it is not the case that one size fits all local authorities. There will be not only different workloads and different types of performance, but resource implications as a result of these processes, and how you manage all that in order to ensure continuous improvement must be part of the equation. Do you have any views on that?

Robert Gray

I am happy to start off, but, of course, I do not want to dominate the discussion.

For a number of years now, Heads of Planning Scotland has been pushing for full cost recovery, at least with regard to development management, to ensure that the fee covers the cost of an application. That said, councils everywhere are doing what they can to drive down the costs of processing applications, with some success. It is a two-sided thing: we are trying to drive down costs, but we also want to be able to recover those costs. In that respect, we are not reliant on already hard-pressed council budgets. Because the developer benefits from the development, it is quite reasonable to expect the developer to pay the costs in question.

The situation might not be the same with regard to the local development plan. I do not want to stray into the area of local place plans, simplified development zones and other issues that might have resource implications and which might actually be more to do with the community, but those sorts of issues might well be covered by central public budgeting. In any case, we would like to see full cost recovery in everything that we do, but there are stages towards that aim that we could look at.

The Convener

We will look at the issue of resources in more detail later. Does anyone else have any comments?

David Leslie

We in Edinburgh have consistently supported the relationship between resources and performance. That brings me back to my point about how we report on performance. If we as an individual authority decide to devote resources to one particular part of the planning process in the city, we should be reporting on how we have used those resources effectively in our annual report on performance and justifying our position in that respect.

I very much support the view that one size does not fit all here. What is appropriate for Edinburgh might not be appropriate for other planning authorities, and we should have the flexibility to adjust resources locally to reflect local planning situations. For instance, in one particular year, we might be dealing with an exceptional amount of new growth, and we might therefore want to devote more resources to pre-application advice. We can report on how effective we have been in doing that.

I think that we could do that.

Monica Lennon

I return to the issues that we have been exploring on performance. Robert Gray and Ailsa Anderson talked about other stakeholders beyond planning authorities and planning officers who have an influence on how quickly the process happens. Will the witnesses reflect on the role of processing agreements, their uptake, what value they add to the process and whether there is evidence that they are driving up performance?

11:30

Robert Gray

Yes, they drive up performance. When something is put on a processing agreement, it comes off the statistics. I can give numerous examples of a developer not wanting to develop straight away. He wants to be in the system but does not want us to deal with his application quickly because, on the day he gets planning permission, he will probably have to spend money to buy land and make investments and he might not have that money lined up. With a processing agreement, we can work with those applicants. We give them dates; they give us dates. We work together with two project plans. Everyone knows what is happening. There is no sense of failure because it is a slower process. People actually get what they want out of the system, and it is right that they disappear from the statistics.

It is helpful to know that an applicant has not provided enough information. When a planning application is validated, that is done on the basis of certain specified information, but that might not actually be enough information to allow a decision to be issued. For example, a bat survey might be needed, which takes several months to obtain because it has to be done during certain periods in the year. If that is put into a processing agreement, everyone knows what is happening and when everything is expected. A committee date is set way in advance, and everyone sticks to it.

David Leslie

The City of Edinburgh Council was one of the pioneers in using processing agreements. I think that we did so before they were on the statute book and as part of a methodology of project managing planning applications. When speaking to applicants, I keep going back to the point that we firmly believe that it is in the interest of all stakeholders, including the community, to have a clearly set out processing agreement, so that everybody knows which part of the process they are engaging in and has clear expectations of timescale.

I agree with your point about declining use. I do not have specific figures, but overall the number of processing agreements that are signed by developers for applications in Edinburgh is lower than it has been in recent years. We are trying to understand the reasons for that. I believe that some of it rests on the preparation of supporting information and uncertainty on the part of applicants about information that they have to provide or on which they are dependent, such as information that comes from external agencies.

Going back to the principle of why we have processing agreements, it is about having a form of collective agreement for everyone who is involved in the process. There is no doubt that it is a good thing. It is also a good tool for measuring performance. If all parties meet the outcome that they set out to achieve within the timescale that they set out, that is a measure of performance.

Monica Lennon

I want to return to Robert Gray for a Heads of Planning perspective. From my memory of discussions on the previous planning bill, which led to the 2006 act, we were told that the way to improve outcomes and drive performance was to work collaboratively, which required a change in culture, and processing agreements were just one small part of that. Are you seeing that change in culture? Whether it is from Transport Scotland, Scottish Water or another of the players round the table, has any evidence been gathered in the past 12 years to show that there is greater collaboration?

Robert Gray

The culture change, which is a big issue in the 2006 act, has been slow and patchy. That is just a truism.

I can think of some successful processing agreements, although I do not know whether they are in the majority. The ones that I am thinking of involve onshore works for major offshore installations in the North Sea. We became part of the engineer’s project plan and the works were approved within the four months for a major development, but we still used a processing agreement because that was our agreement with the applicant and everyone stuck to it. It was like our project plan with the applicant and we all worked to the same outcome.

Processing agreements can work in that way, but I think that the issue that you are alluding to in some of your questioning is whether they are just used to mask figures that would otherwise be bad. That is definitely a risk. Heads of Planning has discussed that at great length and we have tried to get consistency across the authorities on how they are used. Some authorities pick them up. We encourage that, because we consider it to be good project planning. Other authorities see them as using time that could be spent more productively elsewhere. Those authorities will use measures such as just stopping the clock so that, if a piece of information that they need is missing, they do not measure that time. All those approaches can work if they are consistent. As long as, at the end, we can give the Scottish Government consistent figures about how planning performs, they all work.

There is a lot of room for culture change. We are using more pre-application discussions in which we have everyone round the table, including bodies such as Scottish Water, to try to draw them into the same timescale so that we have certainty. Again, that is patchy. In the past, we have discussed whether it might be easier if we charged for that. Some authorities have tried that. I have had developers asking whether my authority would charge, because they think that a neighbouring authority gives a better service because it charges. That authority gives a bound book at the end that includes the timescales and everything that the developer has to do, which seems like a good service and a good way forward. That is starting to drive some culture change. I am sorry for mentioning Scottish Water—it could be any of a number of stakeholders.

There is also the culture on the development side. The planning system gets on well with large engineering projects, because they very much have a project management culture. Through Homes for Scotland and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, we are working extensively with house builders to try to merge our culture with theirs. I am not saying that one is right or wrong but house building alone seems to be the area in which there are delays and frustrations that we still need to do some work on. I am not blaming anyone for that, but there is a piece of work to be done that might not be legislative work. It might involve people picking that up and working together for the desired outcome.

Monica Lennon

As you have mentioned pre-application discussions, I will ask a tiny question about those. The committee had a one-day conference in Stirling—some of the witnesses might have been there—at which we had round-table discussions with committee members as facilitators. In one of my sessions, the point came up that some planning authorities do not do pre-application discussions. Is Heads of Planning aware of that?

Robert Gray

Yes. We are all trying different things. I like pre-application discussions. I like not charging for them, because I do not want anyone to be put off. If we can raise everything up front on day 1 and know what the problems are, we have much longer to solve those problems before we get to a determination.

Pre-application discussions should be done. We find that some authorities go much more into full cost recovery. If we are going to do something, it has a cost and we have to know where that will be paid from. In my authority at the moment, the cost for pre-application discussions comes from the public purse. Everyone benefits, but the developer benefits more. There is a discussion still to be had about the charging, what the real value of the pre-application discussion is and what it would be worth to the developer to put money into the system to make it much more efficient.

The Convener

Mr Miles can answer and then we will have to move on to a new line of questioning.

Gavin Miles

We have been a proponent of process agreements and we offer them on all the applications that we call in. When we started doing that, it worked exceptionally well for the first year or so, because applicants took it on seriously and provided the information at the times that we needed it. Since then, we have found that, in general, deadlines are being missed by applicants, rather than by consultees in the process. We extend the timescales and keep going with that process agreement, because in general we think that there is a good development in there but more information is needed to get it determined. However, that drags things out. We are looking at how to encourage people to keep to the deadlines and not have the application sitting there.

We share pre-application advice with five local authorities, but people either take it or they do not. It is exceptionally frustrating when applications are put into the system and the pre-application advice has been more or less ignored. That leads to delays later on, because we say, “Hold on, we told you months ago that you needed X, Y and Z with your application, but it is not there.”

There are two sides: what planning authorities can do and what the development industry can do. As Robert Gray says, the project-managed projects, which begin by looking at the planning process as something to get through effectively, work their way through the system swiftly and efficiently, but the ones that are not managed that way tend to float around.

Monica Lennon

Perhaps we need to grade the performance of applicants, too.

Andy Wightman

I want to talk about the national planning framework and strategic development plans. Changes have been mooted, such as merging the planning framework with Scottish planning policy and making it part of all development plans, which raises questions about how the NPF should be developed, scrutinised and adopted by the Scottish Parliament and ministers. It is fair to say that there is cross-party consensus that the national planning framework is a good thing and none of the written evidence seriously questions whether we should have it—it is in law, so we have to have it—but are the changes proposed in the bill appropriate?

From reading the submissions from South Lanarkshire Council, Aberdeenshire Council and the City of Edinburgh Council, it is clear that councils do not want greater centralisation of the planning system or the national planning framework to become part of the statutory development plan. What are your views about the proposed changes to the national planning framework?

The Convener

Are there any other comments? I see that Mr Gray would like to speak. I will bring you in later, but I am trying to encourage everyone to speak.

11:45

David Leslie

The relationship between the national planning framework and whatever arrangement that we have at regional level is really important. The input of the cities and regions to the national planning framework might well be determined through that arrangement, so we will come back and look at that in more detail.

Edinburgh, by its nature as the capital city, has a number of national interests in its development. The way in which we manage those developments should be left to the area’s planning authority to deal with in detail. It is important that the local experience is recognised when the national planning framework is prepared. It is a matter of how we input to that process.

The Convener

Would you like to add anything, Mr Gray?

Robert Gray

No. David Leslie has made the point.

Andy Wightman

I will move on to strategic development plans in a moment.

The policy memorandum, under “National Planning Framework”, states:

“national developments are accorded the same status as the development plan in planning decisions.”

Will the proposed changes in the bill make any difference whatsoever to the status of the national planning framework and the regard that local authorities pay to it when they draft their local development plans and make planning determinations?

The Convener

There is not a stampede to answer that question. It would be helpful if you could answer, Mr Gray.

Robert Gray

I am trying to hold back.

We take into account the national planning framework in everything that we do. Under the proposed legislation, it looks more like a national development plan. It replaces a strategic development plan with which we need to be consistent. My potential issue with the national planning framework is about the way in which engagement with the stakeholders will work. Subsidiarity is a political issue that I will leave to Councillor Heddle. However, there needs to be some way in which we are all brought into the national planning framework, so that it is everyone’s plan. How that would happen is not spelled out in the bill.

Right at the beginning of this process, one of the asks of HOPS was for the repositioning of planning. Planning is a unique activity in that it brings together not just developers and infrastructure providers but communities. We really want to be positioned centrally. We like the idea of an important and powerful national planning framework. Someone told the committee previously that the Irish national planning framework was so important that it was launched by the Taoiseach and 17 Cabinet ministers. It was the plan for the country. We like the idea of the national planning framework being that important, as long as we all have an input to it, by having a hearing and a say. That is our aspiration for the national planning framework.

Gavin Miles

I am not sure whether the national planning framework necessarily makes much difference to the way in which decisions are made. The process of getting to the national planning framework is what everyone is a bit concerned about.

Ailsa Anderson

We have to be careful about the point at which we consider the national planning framework, particularly if it can be amended at any stage. Decisions made at that point might lead to a local development plan being incompatible with the national planning framework, given that whatever document is decided on will be the prevailing document. Consultation, particularly on the national planning framework, is important to ensure that there is a robust engagement process and that all opportunities for people to participate are taken.

Andy Wightman

That is helpful. Robert Gray said that there needs to be proper engagement. I do not think that anyone doubts that, and previous iterations have attempted to do that. However, the national planning framework is the Government’s plan; Parliament does not vote on or adopt the plan. Is there a danger that, if we elevate the national planning framework to part of the development plan, a minority Administration could push through developments that Parliament or the public might not want but with which you would need to comply?

Councillor Heddle

I suppose that there is the potential that that could be the case, but I am struggling to think of how examples of what you are suggesting might come through the process.

I go back to my fallback position, which is that we are keen that the local dimension and local democracy are maintained to as great an extent as possible. I would need to think through the implications of what you are suggesting and what impact it would have before I could have a more reasoned and nuanced discussion.

The issue is one on which we have not explicitly taken a position in our submissions thus far. If amendments were to be lodged along those lines, we would need to go back to our board to get an all-COSLA position, if that was possible.

Andy Wightman

I will move on to strategic development plans. It is fair to say that, in its policy memorandum, the Government tells us that the consultation that was done on the planning review threw up mixed views on strategic development plans. We received strong evidence from organisations such as Clydeplan that the process works well and they want it to continue. In principle, there is nothing in the bill that will stop the continuation of the development plan process, but local authorities will be encouraged to produce development plans merely on a voluntary rather than a statutory basis.

Do panel members have any strong views on the future of strategic development plans?

Robert Gray

What is being said everywhere, including by COSLA, is that one size does not fit all. There are four strategic development planning authorities, which are to be replaced or repurposed. The Aberdeen city and shire strategic development planning authority seems to be carrying on, at least for the moment. Tayplan will merge into a bigger group. I think that more guidance is needed for the strategic development planning authorities for Glasgow and Edinburgh, because their plans are particularly large and complex.

I do not see how an accurate national planning framework can be put together without the sort of information that is collected through the strategic development plans. A new national planning framework will have a housing supply target, which will be based on a lot of data that is collected across the whole of Scotland. At the moment, that data is collected in a number of ways. We are trying—Clydeplan is leading on this—to simplify that and to have one way of collecting data. That will assist with what the bill aspires to do, which is to provide a national planning framework that will largely replace strategic development plans.

The conclusion that we have reached is that one size does not fit all. Different areas will do different things. When the strategic development planning authorities were set up, I recall there being a lot of debate about whether Inverness should have a strategic development planning authority. The answer was no, because it falls within one local authority, so there is no point in having another layer.

The regional partnerships are based on local geography and putting things together in such a way that we can input to national documents. That is happening already, so we are relatively comfortable, but when it comes to Glasgow and Edinburgh, more guidance needs to follow. There needs to be more guidance on what the duty to co-operate means and how it will be introduced. I am not sure what will happen in the central belt if authorities cannot reach agreement among themselves on things that we think of as regional.

The Convener

Do members of the panel have any other views on strategic planning?

David Leslie

The City of Edinburgh Council recognises the benefits that the city has gained from regional planning arrangements. Through the strategic development plan, we have been able to work with neighbouring authorities to address the wider needs that the city cannot meet within its administrative boundaries. We have worked with other authorities to deliver cross-boundary solutions, for example in relation to implications for infrastructure. The question in our mind is whether the future arrangements will allow us to work in a similar way with the partners that we need to work with at regional level.

We recognise that some form of regional spatial planning is required to underpin the regional partnership delivery of things such as the city region deal. There is no doubt that a spatial plan is an important foundation for that. The question is really about the tone that the bill sets for it. Is it a tone that will encourage the partners to work together in the way that they do at the moment, or will it allow partners to weaken their engagement? Weakening engagement could mean a weakening of the resources that are devoted to spatial planning at a regional level.

Linking that back to previous questions about the national planning framework, we will have a duty to feed into that. At the regional level, do we have the strength to define our vision and objectives so that they can be clearly articulated and feed into it?

Councillor Heddle

Mr Leslie made some of the points that I was going to make. Following on from what Mr Wightman said, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent regional working taking place on an informal basis, at least. However, the context in which we work is that there is other legislation coming through that encourages regional working, we are expected to collaborate across local authorities to develop regional plans in respect of the enterprise and skills review, and there is cross-council working on education.

Councils will always work together when there is an opportunity to improve services and service delivery. The problem of working together comes when we come up with a plan that in some way conflicts with the regional dimension of the national planning framework as placed alongside the local development plan. That needs to be unpicked.

The Convener

Okay. We have had a good cut at that.

Jenny Gilruth

I want to revisit some of Andy Wightman’s line of questioning. In his written submission, Robert Gray points to the three strategic objectives that have been identified by Heads of Planning Scotland. The first is:

“Planning needs to be repositioned as a strategic enabler, as well as a statutory, regulatory function.”

We heard contributions from the previous panel of witnesses on city deals and on the disconnect between the aspiration for city deals to drive inclusive growth and the aspirations for the Planning (Scotland) Bill in its current context. Is there an opportunity to join up what we do in Government with regard to the economy and planning, and to drive investment to tackle inequalities?

Robert Gray

The straightforward answer is yes. It is part of repositioning. City region deals did not come within the normal defined system that we had been working to, and they had to be dealt with quickly, as they are important. It was about how we provide the infrastructure that we need, which was not particularly unified in a set of plans.

Every activity that we do involves the use of land, so planning should be central to all that, and the way in which we set things up should work with the infrastructure. The plans are the place where we line up where the infrastructure works with the development.

My answer is yes, there is an opportunity for Government to do what you suggest, but—this is a bit like a stuck record—we are the people who bring in the community, which deals with the equality issue of whether planning is being done fairly. Yes, we have the capacity through the plan-making system, and that is the bit that perhaps has not been as valued as it should have been, because everybody is interested in the development management system and the issue of the day. Through plan making, we can deal with the use of land and the way in which infrastructure is provided, including in the city deal models.

Community aspirations should not be lost in that and this is the place where we resolve such conflicts. We should be making great places and if we are not, we are not succeeding. That is what we want to be judged on at the end of this. I am sorry—that was a very long way of saying yes, I agree with what you said.

The Convener

Would any other members of the panel like to say yes in relation to that before Jenny Gilruth follows up? I think that the panel might be in agreement.

Jenny Gilruth

In its current form, the legislation says that a planning authority must “have regard to” a local place plan when preparing a local development plan. We have heard numerous criticisms of the wording “have regard to” not being robust enough, and of communities perhaps being ignored. What is the panel’s view on that?

In their written submission, Miss Hopper and Mr Leslie say:

“there are concerns that Local Place Plans could raise expectations”.

Does the rest of the panel agree with that assertion?

The Convener

Mr Leslie, perhaps you could start off on that and give the rest of the panel a chance to gather their thoughts on those issues.

12:00

David Leslie

From the council’s perspective, a local place plan is of interest in encouraging greater community engagement in the planning process. We might ask whether it will achieve that. The question of raising expectations is about when in the process a local place plan could be used. At the moment, our view is that there should be some flexibility on that, because we can see benefit in a local place plan helping to articulate community objectives at the stage of preparing a local development plan. We can also see it helping to articulate community outcomes once key development proposals are defined in a local development plan, so it could be prepared after the adoption of such a plan.

Managing expectations is about clarity in what the relationship is. I come back to my point about one size not fitting all. There could be an opportunity for local place plans to be used by community groups in a number of scenarios, but they need to be clear on what they can expect to be an outcome from that and when in the process the plan might be most effective. Clearly, some form of guidance from Government to manage consistency and expectations will be important.

The Convener

Are there any other comments on local place plans?

Gavin Miles

We would agree with that. Unless there is an equal resource from the public sector to support them, there is a real risk that inequality will be enhanced and that richer areas will do better, because they have more people with more free time and skills to devote to something that they want to see, whereas in poorer areas—or in those where there are more people who are just working and busier—that will not happen. How such a plan ties into the development plan system is a big issue, because we do not want communities investing a lot of time and energy in something that is then not ignored but perhaps not taken into account in the way that they want it to be. That is where we need to have more clarity about exactly how such a plan will fit in.

Ailsa Anderson

There is certainly a place for local place plans if they are used in the right way. We need to ensure that they are deliverable and not just aspirational when it comes to progressing proposals in development plans. We need to be able to have something tangible in them to take forward.

There are questions about what we do at local level when a local place plan contradicts the NPF, which might be, for example, in a desire to see no more housing in an area in which we have identified that there is an acute need. Another issue that we need to address is how such plans fit into the context of other documents that are available, particularly to community councils, to progress their aspirations, and how they sit alongside community action plans and locality plans coming through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Therefore, as far as progressing local place plans is concerned, a lot of clarity is still required and a lot of guidance will be required, particularly on how they will be delivered by community councils, how they will be prepared consistently and the resourcing that is required by both spatial planners and community planning to take them forward.

Councillor Heddle

In COSLA’s submission, we were not wholly supportive of local place planning but we are not against it. We are entirely supportive of the principle of involving communities in their plans, and particularly community councils in community planning.

When it comes to local place plans as described, other panellists have made the point that there is a potential equality issue in that less well-resourced communities may struggle to produce such plans and will lose out to those who can do so. To get away from that, we could resource support, which brings us to the expectations question. Expectations will be raised where there is not a realistic understanding of what is possible or, indeed, likely. That suggests that there needs to be a close relationship between the people developing the local place plan and the planning authority, to support those people, so a resourcing question is inherent in that.

The final thing that I want to say on local place plans is on the “have regard to” question. As framed, that phrase is appropriate. We would be more supportive of local place planning if it were framed in that way, because it would leave decision making with elected representatives. It would also allow elected representatives to wrestle with problems that might come from a local place plan potentially being in conflict with other things in the framework. We can write down a number of things already. There might be conflict with the national planning framework, the local development plan, simplified planning zones, the “agent of change” principle, the fairer Scotland duty and locality planning. A fully informed local place plan might have to consider all those things, and that is an entire industry in itself. Flexibility in allowing elected members to wrestle with problems is appropriate, and we would be content with the phrase “have regard to”.

The Convener

Alexander Stewart was exploring something along those lines earlier. Does he want to explore it further now?

Alexander Stewart

Yes, if I may. To follow on from Jenny Gilruth’s comments, resources for implementing how things will happen in communities have been talked about. Some communities have community councils, but some do not; rather, they have other organisations that try to assist. How do you ensure that they are engaged at the early stage in order to ensure that expectations are met and that they are not led in a certain direction only for something not to happen or to fail? How do you square that circle?

The Convener

No one is making eye contact with me. Come on, witnesses.

Gavin Miles

I was going to add to the previous discussion that we are probably sounding more negative than we really are, as we all invest an awful lot of time and money in trying to engage communities very well throughout the process.

Different authorities will have different ways of doing that. We have done that through trying to have people out speaking to communities and through community action plans. Historically, such plans have not focused on land use planning elements but, over time, we have tried to get them to do that. Through such plans, people create a plan for their community. We try to ensure that as many people across the community as possible are spoken to before there is a plan for the community. I am not sure that local place plans would necessarily have to involve that. There is a worry that a place plan could come from one part of the community rather than the whole community.

It is inevitable that the public sector tries to get as many people involved as possible, but that takes time and money. As a national park authority, we have maybe devoted more to doing that. We have a smaller population to cover than big urban authorities or authorities that cover a wide area have, but that works, and it feeds into the development plan. I do not see how there can be resourcing evenly across bigger areas. We do that over years; it is phased. We have a five-year rotation in the plans for communities.

Alexander Stewart

It is about identifying the stakeholders in the community and ensuring that there can be a good rapport with them on what they want and how they feel they are being treated. Lip service should not be paid to their being part of the process.

On people trying to manage that in much larger urban areas, Edinburgh will have a massive issue with trying to deal with it in a specific area compared with smaller council areas or locations that have a real community spirit and which will not be advised in other areas. It is about capturing that process. However, without the resources, it is virtually impossible to achieve that. Without dealing with the financial part, is there any other way of achieving that?

Gavin Miles

We have tried to address that point in the national park. We have tried to tackle individual communities, and we probably started with the ones that had more ability in the first place. We worked with them first and then went round to the others.

Maybe the tricky part is that there is a learning process for whoever is doing that and for the community. More people get involved in the process the second time because they see the value in it. It is unlikely to be done properly the first time; people get better the second time. It is iterative. People improve over time. However, that will be a challenge.

The Convener

I want to check something. It is interesting that communities can self-define. There can be a community of interest or a geographical community, but that could create problems once lines are drawn on a map. Someone mentioned that a community might not want any additional housing. However, if a line on a map is drawn a little bit to the east or to the west, it might suddenly be found that there is a wider community that sees a need for housing.

Do we need clearer guidance in the first place on what we mean by “communities” and how local authorities should interact with them? I would like to think of the local place plans as being positive in terms of place making and development instead of being restrictive and stopping the development and place making that are needed in a wider community. What are your thoughts?

Gavin Miles

As I have been saying, having a local place plan would make a lot of sense if it enhanced the development plan, and it would provide quite a clear context for a community to take things forward. If all it does is add detail to something that is already in the development plan or compete with the plan itself, you have the potential for unhappy communities.

Ailsa Anderson

On the question of defining communities, it is also important to define the phrase “local place” when we consider local place plans. A community council area could cover many settlements and communities, but would each community or part of a community require its own local place plan? If so, it would be a very big task to deliver all that in local development planning. There might be communities in community council areas that are particularly involved in these things and have a good sense of place and community, but there might be other settlements or communities that are not as engaged in the process. The issue is how flexible the local place plan can be to accommodate everyone’s aspirations and desires with regard to the outcomes from these documents.

In the analysis of the process that we went through for our current local development plan, stakeholders who were involved in the process gave strong evidence about the importance of early and continual engagement. I think that that answers both questions. Whatever the process is, we have to ensure that we gain ownership and understanding early in the process and that we retain that as the development plan evolves. There is an opportunity to use gate checks—in the plural rather than the singular—throughout the process to build that understanding.

The Convener

Okay. As a housekeeping note to fellow committee members, I note that the witnesses will hear a heck of a lot from me if no one else makes a bid to ask questions.

Oh. Mr Wightman has a question. Excellent.

Andy Wightman

My question is on a new topic. Is that okay?

The Convener

Absolutely.

Andy Wightman

We love new topics.

We have not explored very much the bill’s proposal that statutory supplementary guidance be abolished. Are there any views on that, given that, for some authorities and some communities, it is deemed to be a valuable way of framing local planning policy?

Ailsa Anderson

I work in Aberdeenshire, where most of our supplementary guidance is map based. If it was to form part of the plan, the plan would be bulked out significantly.

There is a place for supplementary guidance in providing the additional information. Going with the current status, where there needs to be a policy hook, would be a good way to go, because we at least have the context, which has been scrutinised, and then we have the map-based evidence sitting separately.

Andy Wightman

Are you saying that we should not abolish statutory supplementary guidance?

Ailsa Anderson

We should not necessarily abolish it. I think that there is a place for it.

Kate Hopper (City of Edinburgh Council)

Robert Gray

The submission was put together largely by the executive on behalf of a number of authorities. There were lots of different authors, but we made the submission look as though there was only one.

On the route to get here, we put a number of asks, because we wanted game changers in the bill. I will temper my enthusiasm by saying that we did not get our game changers. Nevertheless, we got things that, technically, we can work with. There are controversial proposals such as place plans and simplified planning zones, but those are tools in the box that you do not have to pick up and use if they are not for you. That said, perhaps place plans are a bit different in that regard.

If a council wants to pick up, for example, a simplified planning zone because it considers that it will help regeneration and inward investment and that it is the right thing for it to do, that is fine. If another local authority considers that that is the wrong approach for it, because there is too much exclusion of elected members and communities, and that it is not going to use it, that is also okay. Some of our enthusiasm is because the bill recognises that no one size fits all. The bill will help councils to pick up and use the bits that are useful for them; so, overall, we are supportive of it.

The first game changer that we wanted was central repositioning. Does the bill do that? Is there something in the bill that says what planning is, what it is for and how important it is? No—we did not get that.

The second aspect that we wanted to be addressed is the resourcing of planning, but primary legislation is probably not the right place to deal with that.

The third leg of what we called for is the continued simplifying and streamlining of what we do, but that does not particularly affect us either way.

On the three things that we were measuring the bill against, it did not do the first one particularly well; we will wait and see on the second one, because that does not necessarily need legislation; and the third one does not prevent our continuing to simplify and streamline, perhaps with assistance through the proposed national planning performance co-ordinator role.

Our response to the bill is measured, but our answer to the questions that we were asked was “yes”.

The Convener

I saw your enthusiasm seeping away as you answered that question.

Andy Wightman

That response is helpful. Part of the reason for Heads of Planning Scotland’s response might be—I am speculating—that, over the past two years, it has been very involved in the independent review and in working groups inside the Government, so the bill is the last stage for it whereas it is the first stage for a lot of other people, because they have not been as heavily engaged.

There is broad support for your point about the purposes of planning, so you can take some comfort in knowing that there will almost certainly be movement in that direction.

I do not know whether Mr Heddle wants to respond.

Councillor Heddle

I would not dream of speaking on behalf of Heads of Planning Scotland.

With your indulgence, I will briefly return to your question on supplementary guidance. Supplementary guidance is another useful tool in the toolbox, because it is a means of taking out of the larger plan issues that might be subject to change when the plan is being put together. As we move to local development plans on a longer timescale, the risk is that something could go into those plans that rapidly became redundant and was at odds with authorities’ planning aspirations.

The Convener

Simplified development zones were mentioned, so we should explore that issue, given that it is in the bill. The committee has heard a lot of evidence about simplified development zones. A lot of folk do not like the name and want to see the balance between getting the development zone right and doing place making properly. What is the purpose of simplified development zones? What is good about them? In what areas would you want clearer safeguards or definitions?

Ailsa Anderson

In principle, simplified development zones are a useful tool that could be made available to planning authorities to use where they deem that it would be appropriate. They should perhaps sit under development plans in order to avoid undermining the plan-led system. That would mean that there would be public scrutiny and, as part of the evidence report, the gate check could confirm that a simplified development zone was appropriate for an area and was not being imposed by a third party, for example.

Such zones should be applied only in areas where there is a need, because avoidance of planning has been seen as a blockage in the system. They should not be used just as a matter of course; there needs to be a purpose in implementing such zones in a particular area.

David Leslie

12:30

David Leslie

I will answer that question, as Edinburgh has been mentioned. I return to my previous answer about embedding SDZs within a plan-led process to ensure local accountability. If the planning authority in Edinburgh has considered the issue as part of the preparation of the development plan and has decided that the simplified development zones approach is not an appropriate tool for taking forward development in one of the city’s growth areas, it will be in a strong position to discuss with ministers why it does not consider the approach to be appropriate. If the approach is imposed, we will be entering another area of discussion.

The Convener

Okay. It is good to have that on the record.

Councillor Heddle

I concur with my colleague. There are issues of local democracy and subsidiarity at work here. If the approach is imposed on local authorities, that can only be described as a power grab.

Graham Simpson

Indeed, but that approach is in the bill, Councillor Heddle.

The Convener

We will wait and see what the minister says about that in a few weeks’ time.

We should explore the infrastructure levy, because there is provision for that in the bill. The levy is an enabling power—it is one way of raising finances for infrastructure and promoting development. Do witnesses have any thoughts on that? Is there a missed trick? Could we do other things to raise those finances?

Robert Gray

Our experience in the north-east has been quite difficult. We had a strategic transport fund that was, in effect, an experimental form of infrastructure fund. It failed at the Supreme Court because there was too great a distance between the intervention—which was a junction or railway station—and the development that was contributing towards it. We could not line them up well enough.

The bill would probably enable us to go ahead with that now, but it would lead to other difficulties around reasonableness, proportionality and trying to get developers to buy into it. We found that developers liked the transport fund. They would probably like an infrastructure fund, because it would give them some certainty about how much they would be asked for. The landowners very much did not like the fund. It was interesting that it was challenged by the landowners, as it is the value of the land that reduces, ultimately.

The transport fund was an interesting experiment, and I wish people well with the infrastructure fund, although I am disappointed with the level of funding that the Government says is likely to be raised by it. It has put a figure of £75 million against it nationally. Each council needs that sort of money for the infrastructure that it is short of and for the type of development that is needed, and we were looking for something more like £80 million for the interventions. Fife Council thinks along the same lines, and other large authorities will need that amount of money for things such as road and rail improvements and stations if they are to incur no net detriment for new development—although I know that that is almost impossible. In some parts of the country, our infrastructure is pretty creaky.

The discussion around the infrastructure levy goes beyond things that we normally think of as essential for development to take place. There is a debate around the country about whether broadband is now needed and whether we should not be developing where there is no broadband, because it has become such a normal part of people’s lives in the same way that they need a road to their house. There is a debate about whether that kind of improvement should be chargeable under an infrastructure levy.

“represents the full range of staff in planning teams”.

We have some people here who are on the front line. Is any of that relatable? Would Kate Hopper or Ailsa Anderson like to comment?

The Convener

Would anyone like to comment?

Robert Gray

Planners are very hard worked, but this is about good management and we have, in the past, not been very good at collecting the statistics that we need. Some authorities, with the use of consultants, have come up with some figures for how many planning applications an individual planner should have in a year and how many they should have at any one time. A planning authority can then work out how many planners it needs and, at that point, the resource can go up and down at the discretion of its chief executive. There should be formulas for how many planners are needed. We are very bad at increasing the number of planners when there is an upturn. It is difficult to balance the peaks and troughs—it is about managing the resource.

We have a skills shortage and difficulty in attracting people into the profession. We have a shortage of courses, I believe, and the future of some of them is a bit uncertain. It is a problem that HOPS is addressing in a number of ways. HOPS will be working on what the true cost of a planning application is and what staffing is needed to deal with it.

Monica Lennon

I am interested in planners’ ability to do their jobs and in good morale. Unison Scotland’s comments are pretty brutal. I did not see anything like them in the HOPS response, so maybe the planning bosses are not so close to the situation. I do not want to put people on the spot on their personal experience, but I imagine that Kate Hopper and Ailsa Anderson are very much on the front line day to day—more so than the management tier. I was chair of the Scottish young planners network many years ago. What is it like for young planners right now?

Ailsa Anderson

Monica Lennon

Other colleagues might want to ask about tapering the appeal rights that are available. As an observation, the language that we use in the planning system is important, and there has been a shift in language from talking about third parties to talking about equal partners. Is there a sense among heads of planning that communities are a third party and are somehow not on an equal platform? From the evidence that we have heard, I think that that antagonises communities and local people, including local businesses and makes them feel that they are not on the same wavelength and that they do not have the same status. Do you accept that if planners are using phrases such as “third parties”, that in itself could be a barrier to good community engagement?

Robert Gray

Yes, people outside the system do not understand the term “third party”—I think that that is just a fact.

There are also cross-boundary issues. When one authority approves something even though the town immediately across the boundary is full of objectors, is that fair? The people in that town have no right of appeal. If there were to be some movement on the issue of others being allowed into the system to debate whether development should happen, that would enable us to would look to such criteria. In such a case, there is a built-in unfairness with regard to people who live in the wrong authority area, as it is not their elected members who have made a decision that has affected them.

There are quite a few cases involving boundary issues, and there might be some mileage in looking at that issue but, if you live in an authority area and your elected representative has done something that you do not like, at some point a decision has to be made and the recourse is to not to elect them again—sorry, Councillor Heddle.

The Convener

I do not think that that was meant for Councillor Heddle personally—just all councillors. Councillor Heddle, you have been very patient and I know that you want to come in.

Councillor Heddle

COSLA has not supported a third-party right of appeal, due to the impact that it might have on development and local economies through the time that it could take to determine applications and the external forces that might act against local interests.

I could pick on my local authority area, Orkney, as one that many people would like to be turned into a nature reserve, but the elected members reasonably take the view that it is a place where people should be allowed to live and work as well. They have to be circumspect about things like that.

The bill includes measures to involve communities, such as the local place plans. There is also the work that already happens on pre-application procedures. The increased planning performance demonstrates that that is good for performance as well. The infrastructure levy is another potential way to involve communities because it creates a direct linkage between development and positive developments for the community if it can be determined locally and the benefits can be reaped locally.

COSLA will have to consider that aspect before stage 2 of the bill, not least because the discussion is widening to an equal right of appeal rather than a third-party right of appeal. An equal right of appeal could mean many things. It could mean that nobody has any right to appeal. I do not know whether that is what you intend at this point, but there is a spectrum of approaches that we need to consider. I noticed that, in a previous meeting, Dr Inch made some interesting points about an equal right of appeal under strict circumstances—a limited equal right of appeal. That is also something that we have to consider.

The Convener

We have 10 minutes maximum left of this evidence-taking session and then we really have to close. I am keen to let members back in. I apologise, but brevity would be very helpful.

Gavin Miles

The reason that we did not support the right of appeal is that we often have the same group of people objecting to every development that our planning committee considers. Sometimes, they have well-set-out, considered reasons; sometimes it is simply because they do not want development in a national park. If every one of those decisions was appealed, the process could grind to a halt. For many planning authorities, the fear is that the right of appeal could be misused in some cases.

Graham Simpson

I am really interested in what the witnesses from the City of Edinburgh Council said. I have never heard a council talk like that and say that it does not think that it is getting things right and that we should consider some sort of right of appeal. That is refreshing because councils are normally defensive. They think that they are getting everything right. They all think that they have hearts, of course, as you do, Mr Leslie.

I was looking frantically through your written submission and could not see anything in there about a right of appeal. The City of Edinburgh Council has obviously considered it. Will you give us some more details about the kind of scheme that the council is thinking of and whether Edinburgh could be used as a trial area for it? If MSPs and the Government were not sure about how it would work, perhaps it could be tried somewhere.

David Leslie

It is an interesting idea to pilot the right of appeal in one area.

The limited amount of work that we have done on the matter is, I emphasise, focused on communities. We are not using the term “third party”. In the Edinburgh planning concordat, we already have a basis for a tripartite approach to dealing with major developments, which involves the developer, the planning authority and the relevant affected community. The commitment to a right of appeal has grown from that basis. It is also a recognition that many developments in the city do not fall into the category of a major development but are significant local developments, in relation to which there is no statutory provision for pre-application engagement with the community at the moment. We recognise that that definition needs to be considered.

We are very much considering the idea in the round, not in isolation. The right of appeal would work only in certain circumstances. I certainly concur with the comments that other colleagues have made that it would not be in the council’s interest to hold back development. An appeals process would have to be done in a way that allowed the community to feel greater confidence in planning decision making without delaying the process unnecessarily.

Graham Simpson

Has the idea gone through any committee of the council?

David Leslie

It is a council commitment. As it is one of the administration’s commitments, it was agreed by the full council.

The Convener

It would be helpful if you could tell us specifically what the commitment is.

David Leslie

Andy Wightman

Earlier, Robert Gray said that the question that he would prefer to be asked was that of whether the applicant’s right of appeal should persist. I wonder whether Mr Gray has an answer to that question. It is worth noting that, as has been said, the applicant’s right of appeal has always been part of the system, but when it was introduced, it was intended to be temporary. In most other European countries, applicants do not have appeal rights, because there is a plan, which is stuck to. We have a more discretionary system.

In light of the fact that Robert Gray and others have said that a third-party right of appeal would clog up the system and lead to delays, would getting rid of the applicant’s right of appeal get rid of delays and strengthen democracy?

Robert Gray

We have a local review body within councils for things that do not have to go to the Government for appeal. I am speaking for me rather than HOPS here; the HOPS view is written down. I do not have any particular difficulty with the applicant’s right of appeal being to another council body and being part of local democracy. I do not think that the applicant’s right of appeal has to be a right of appeal to the minister.

I know that, on some things, the minister has a much wider view than a local authority. There is a subsidiarity issue in there. However, there are many more things that I think are of local significance that could be dealt with locally—I might be straying into Councillor Heddle’s territory by making a political statement rather than a technical statement. Technically, that could work—some of the appeals that go to Government could go to a local review body that was run by the council.

Andy Wightman

We now move to agenda item 2, which we previously agreed to take in private.

13:03 Meeting continued in private until 13:30.

14 March 2018

Fourth meeting transcript

The Convener (Bob Doris)

Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2018 of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I remind everyone present to turn off mobile phones. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, members may use tablets during the meeting. We have a full house today—no apologies have been received.

Under agenda item 1, the committee will take evidence on the Planning (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I welcome Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Local Government and Housing. With him are John McNairney, chief planner, Andy Kinnaird, bill manager, and Norman Macleod, senior principal legal officer, from the Scottish Government. I invite the minister to make opening remarks.

Kevin Stewart (Minister for Local Government and Housing)

Thank you, convener, and good morning. The Planning (Scotland) Bill is just one element, but a vital one, of a full programme of review of the planning system. The bill’s content and our intentions for the review as a whole are rooted in the findings and recommendations of an independent panel that was made up of users of the planning system.

There have been a number of drivers for the planning review from the beginning: the need to deliver more housing, the need to improve the experience and influence of our communities, the effectiveness of development planning and leading positive change in our places, the need for more proactive management of development, and the need for strong leadership and better management of skills and resources. We have maintained our focus on all those drivers throughout, and we are taking forward the vast majority of the panel’s recommendations.

We are not starting from scratch. Much of the existing planning system will remain—for example, there will be a continuing requirement for development planning to contribute to the principles of sustainable development. However, we are proposing changes that will radically reform how planning is done. The bill is certainly more than just tinkering—it will lead an essential shift in our planning services away from a largely regulatory function, and it will strip back unnecessary process to facilitate delivery of good-quality development and the great places that our communities deserve. For example, our reforms for development planning will create greater clarity for all about the future direction of development and will free planners and stakeholders from the continuous cycle of plan writing, which will enable them to work together on plan delivery.

If you are going to ask the questions that I think you are going to ask, deputy convener, it would be helpful if you came in here and followed some of that up.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

First, I remind the committee that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

I want to develop Andy Wightman’s line of questioning. For clarity, what do you think is the core purpose of planning?

Kevin Stewart

As I see it, the core purpose of planning is to create great places. It is about ensuring that we serve Scotland’s communities, that we achieve sustainable economic growth and that we have the housing that we need and the jobs that we need for our economy to thrive.

Monica Lennon

The bill does not state the core purpose of planning, and we have heard from a number of witnesses—the RTPI, Professor Cliff Hague and others—that that would be a very sensible addition to the bill. We have also been told that other countries have been able to state very distinctly the purpose of planning. Is that an omission from the bill?

Kevin Stewart

I do not think so. We agree that the United Nations goals are a useful starting point, but we think that they are more relevant to policy than to primary legislation.

There is also a duty for planning authorities to contribute to sustainable development in the exercise of their functions, as introduced by the 2006 act.

09:30

There are many different ideas on the purpose of planning. The week before last, I was at a meeting with folks from the Scottish alliance for people and places. If we had gone round the room and asked, there would have been different ideas about the purpose of planning.

Other countries set all that out in policy, rather than in legislation. Reaching a definition and getting agreement on it is always going to be extremely difficult.

There are also a number of legal aspects to consider. If you do not mind, convener, I will bring in Mr Macleod at this point. As our legal expert, he might wish to add a few things.

The Convener

Of course.

Norman Macleod (Scottish Government)

My observation is that we can set out a purpose of planning in policy terms. If that were to be put in legislation, however, it would have legal effect. If it were to have legal effect, it could be used—and people would want it to be used—to challenge decisions and alter how things are processed at all levels of the planning system. We would therefore need to be very clear that that purpose of planning was what we want it to be. It would be much harder to amend a purpose in legislation than to amend a purpose in a policy document.

Monica Lennon

Is it the case that there is not a clear and agreed definition of planning? Professor Cliff Hague, who is a renowned international academic, said:

“What is the alternative to having a purpose? There are presumably two possibilities. One is that there is no purpose, in which case why are we doing it? The other is that there is a purpose but we are not prepared to say what it is, and that is not a great piece of administration.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 7 March 2018; c 49.]

Is there a legal impediment to linking the purpose of planning to the UN’s sustainable development goals? Would that not be a sensible place to start?

Kevin Stewart

I outlined what I see as being the purpose of planning. I do not think that many folk would disagree with many of the things that I have said.

The question is whether the definition should be in legislation or in policy. Mr Macleod has outlined the issues in his way—what is the purpose, how do we get to that point and what is the situation if that is challengeable?

As Ms Lennon is probably aware, such discussions around the topic arose during scrutiny of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. An independent advisory group said that there was a need to introduce a statutory purpose, which the Welsh Government resisted during early scrutiny. I believe that it had some difficulties around that.

The Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of planning law in Wales, with a view to providing recommendations for consolidating and simplifying it. Its consideration of the appropriate section of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015 and the proposal on the need for a statutory purpose is set out in a detailed consultation paper that was issued in November last year. The commission suggests that setting out a purpose in law could cause unnecessary and unhelpful duplication as well as conflict.

The last thing that I, and others, want is conflict; a huge part of what we are embarking on is about trying to remove conflict from the system.

The Convener

Okay. We will move on to a new topic.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

The bill has been described as a centralising bill. From going through it, that appears to be the case. Can you point to any part of it in which powers will not flow to you?

Kevin Stewart

Graham Simpson

The issue flows on rather nicely. Paragraph 6 of proposed new schedule 5A to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states:

“The Scottish Ministers may at any time direct a planning authority”

and set out the terms by which it must make or alter a simplified development zone scheme. That seems to be pretty centralised to me.

I know that you have been asked this question by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. One of the concerns is that, as the bill stands, it does not specify where simplified development zones cannot be set up. I know that you have committed to correcting that oversight—assuming that it is an oversight—but can you give us more details of your thinking on that?

Kevin Stewart

I wrote to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which had questions in that regard.

On your question about the power in relation to simplified development zones, we do not at all envisage using that power frequently. It will be an option to consider when we prepare the delivery programme for the national planning framework and are considering how best to ensure that key sites and projects of national or regional importance are managed and brought forward for development in a co-ordinated way.

Ministers might think that a simplified development zone could support housing delivery, for example. In Ireland, the strategic development zone approach, whereby the Government makes an order that requires the planning authority to prepare an SDZ scheme and bring it forward within two years of the date of the order, has enabled the creation of quality neighbourhoods that address housing shortages.

I reiterate that we do not envisage using the power frequently. I mentioned my letter to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. We have agreed with that committee’s suggestion that types of land that may not be included in a simplified development zone should be set out in the bill. There should be a power to add or remove entries in that list, by regulation. I have undertaken to lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2.

The Convener

That is helpful.

Graham Simpson

That is absolutely right; you undertook to do that, minister. Can you tell us what types of land might be covered in your amendment?

Kevin Stewart

I have given an undertaking to look at all that very closely at stage 2, and I will continue to have discussions about the matter. We will let you know what we plan to do as we come closer to stage 2.

Graham Simpson

If you do not envisage using the power to make a simplified development zone scheme very often, why do you need it?

Kevin Stewart

Issues might arise, as has happened elsewhere, that necessitate ministers becoming involved in simplified development zones.

Some of the debate about the issue has been interesting. Some folk—including Mr Simpson, I think—want ministers to become much more involved in the establishment of new towns, in relation to which powers exist under the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968. A new town is a huge development, and Mr Simpson and others want ministers to become more involved in such developments. However, he seems not to want us to have the ability to intervene in relation to a simplified development zone in the national interest. That would involve a much smaller development than a new town.

That is helpful. That was the key part of the answer. I wanted to know whether the Government would proactively police local authorities that do not come up with simplified development zones. The answer seems to be that that is not the intent. That is what I was trying to tease out.

Monica Lennon

In instances in which a request is made to a planning authority for a simplified development zone and that request is refused or no answer is given within three months, the applicant or relevant person can refer the matter to the Scottish ministers. Therefore, ministers would have a locus.

Minister, you have talked about using your proactive powers sparingly in the national interest, but if a local authority has turned down a request because it does not conform with the development plan and the matter lands in front of you because someone has an answer that they do not like or did not get an answer within three months, what tests will you or future ministers apply? I know that you are keen to improve the effectiveness of development plans in a plan-led system. Is not there scope for conflict in the system in that respect?

Kevin Stewart

As the planning minister, cases often cross my desk in which folk do not get their own way. Like all my predecessors, I have to wrestle with such matters regularly. As with all other things that cross my desk, I would have to consider every request very carefully indeed.

I see that Mr Wightman is trying to catch my eye, but I will take his line of questioning later. We will move on to an area that Jenny Gilruth and Alexander Stewart are interested in.

Jenny Gilruth (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)

I want to look at the provisions on local place plans. Under the bill, planning authorities are to “have regard to” the local place plan, which means that a community could create such a plan but its needs could then be completely ignored. That possibility was highlighted in a previous evidence session when Dr Andy Inch said that

“A risk of a weak status for local place plans in decision making is that communities and others can invest hundreds of hours and huge amounts of voluntary time and effort into producing the local place plans, only to find that subsequent decisions broadly disregard”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 February 2018; c 5.]

them. Do we need to revisit the wording of the bill and consider again putting local place plans on a statutory footing, so that communities are listened to in the planning process?

10:00

Kevin Stewart

We want planning authorities to consider seriously the plans that local communities have put forward for their places, but they will not be bound to adopt them in full.

Planning has to deal with the connections of places at all scales. There has to be consideration right across the board and, of course, account has to be taken of the national planning framework. Planning authorities have to consider the whole area that they represent and how they meet their statutory duties on issues such as equalities and climate change, which local plans might not—I repeat, might not—cover.

I have listened very carefully to the arguments on the wording, which at the moment is “have regard to”. I think that we should require planning authorities to “take account” of local place plans in preparing their local development plans. That would place local place plans on the same level as the national planning framework and local outcome improvement plans, for which the phraseology “take account” is used.

Jenny Gilruth

I see a lot of fellow members disagreeing with that, so I want to follow up on it. I assume that the wording “take account” does not put a statutory obligation on planning authorities to actually listen to the local plans.

The Convener

I think that there were bemused looks rather than looks of disagreement from committee members. Minister, if you could enlighten us, that would be helpful.

Kevin Stewart

I want to ensure that communities have their say in planning, but other factors come into play. There are factors that the local development plan needs to take account of. There are policy-related requirements with respect to local development plans and requirements to deliver for an area as a whole and not necessarily just one community. At some point, a local authority also has to be able to take into account either necessary policy objectives or national planning framework objectives.

As members are well aware, the local development plan has to go through substantial scrutiny before being adopted, including a strategic environmental assessment, independent examination and public consultation. If local place plans were to be automatically adopted, they would need similar scrutiny. We want to reduce bureaucracy, as folk are well aware, but we also want to make it easy for communities to put forward their proposals and their ambitions for their places.

Our approach, therefore, allows the scrutiny to be undertaken when a planning authority prepares or reviews its local development plan, taking account of local place plans for the area, rather than placing the burden on the community.

I have said elsewhere, when talking about the early stages of community planning, that in the first scheme that I was involved with, members of the community placed stickers on a map of the area to show what they wanted to see. In that particular exercise, we ended up with folk wanting three swimming pools within four streets, because no parameters were set and there was no communication about it.

However, when people know that certain things have to take place in a particular area they exercise good judgment. If we achieve that level of communication, people will formulate place plans that take account of what is necessary for the particular place, again removing unnecessary conflict. That is the position that I would like us to reach.

Jenny Gilruth

Many of the organisations that we have taken evidence from have highlighted capacity issues around developing local place plans and have suggested that there should be a cost associated with the plans, with financial support from the Government. My concern is that poorer communities are going to be disadvantaged in relation to local place plans. If there is no active community council, for example, there is no obvious body to develop the plan, and there may not be the capacity to do that because, in the past, the community may never have had the opportunity to feed into the planning process. What are your comments on those issues?

Kevin Stewart

I will start with some of the costs that have been suggested by folk who have given evidence to this committee and other committees of the Parliament, one of which is the figure of £13,000 for each local place plan. That £13,000 would be the total cost if a community had to pay for everything in a charette-type circumstance. However, that is not necessary, as I said when I appeared in front of the Finance and Constitution Committee a few weeks ago.

A number of places around the country have already formulated place plans with no resource input from anywhere else. In some cases, I have heard it said that folk did not want the resource input, because they thought that that might mean there would be interference from elsewhere. I have talked in the chamber about Linlithgow and its local place plan, which it developed on its own, and the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee talked about areas in his Stirling constituency where folk have developed their own local place plans.

The financial memorandum for the bill, which I went over in some depth with the Finance and Constitution Committee, estimates that

“five or six in a medium-sized authority, over a three-year period, might be reasonable, making a total of around 92 LPPs being prepared each year.”

I do not want local place plans to be too onerous or necessarily to require a significant amount of planning expertise. We already have tools and templates that help communities to understand and formulate what they think is required in their place. I have talked before at this committee about the use of the place standard tool, which is one of the ways forward.

At the Finance and Constitution Committee, I said that I expect local authorities to prioritise and use resource to support more deprived communities that want to formulate local place plans and to give those communities the help that they need. I hope that the engagement in formulating local development plans will be completely and utterly inclusive, to ensure that communities that are more disadvantaged get help and support.

Finally, also at the Finance and Constitution Committee, I pointed out that there are Government funds available for such work. The £20 million empowering communities fund invests in communities so that they can develop the resource and resilience necessary to decide their own priorities and needs. I imagine that there will be applications to that fund. Over the past few years, the Government has invested to allow communities to hold their own charrettes. There are various opportunities.

I share Ms Gilruth’s desire to ensure that poorer communities are not disadvantaged, and I expect local authorities to prioritise help for such communities in the first instance.

Jenny Gilruth

My final comment is a point rather than a question. Recently, the committee has taken a lot of evidence on the city region deals. We have produced a report and will hold a debate in Parliament next week. The committee has heard evidence on the disconnect between the city region deal aspiration, which is meant to drive inclusive growth, and the planning process.

It was interesting that you alluded to the actions of local authorities and said that you hoped that they would listen to the aspirations of communities. In my experience, Fife Council did not listen to the aspirations of some of the poorest communities in Scotland in the area that I represent. Given that it was just hoped that Fife Council would carry out community engagement and the council was not required to show evidence of how it had done so, the council did not do it.

I am concerned that, if local authorities are not compelled to do something, they will not do it. They will go ahead with their own pet projects, as I found in my experience of the city deals, whereby the city of Edinburgh benefited hugely from the city deal funding and Fife did not.

Kevin Stewart

I have read the committee’s city region deal report, but that was several weeks ago. I cannot remember the detail of your recommendations off the top of my head.

The city region deals fall within Mr Brown’s domain. I do not want to put words into his mouth or anyone else’s, but there has been some frustration at points about the negotiation around the deals and the quickness with which some things have been done without consultation. Where there is an opportunity for consultation, I always want it to happen.

Mr Brown and others will look carefully at the committee’s report on its scrutiny of city region deals and its recommendations, and I will convey Ms Gilruth’s remarks on that to Mr Brown—although he has probably already heard them.

The Convener

I can confirm that he almost certainly has, minister.

Jenny Gilruth

Yes.

The Convener

I hope that he will take account of them.

Alexander Stewart has a question, but I ask him to be patient, because his colleague Graham Simpson has a specific supplementary question. I ask members to hold back their supplementary questions until after Mr Stewart has exhausted his line of questioning.

Graham Simpson

I am happy to let Alexander Stewart ask his questions as long as I can come back in.

The Convener

You have a very specific question, Mr Simpson, so it would be better to raise it now, while the matter is still fresh.

Graham Simpson

You mentioned Linlithgow, minister. Several members of the committee visited Linlithgow and spoke to the people who had been involved in preparing the local place plan. I have to say that they were less than impressed with the process. They put an awful lot of work into it and produced a very impressive document, but West Lothian Council decided not to adopt it. I think that was the point that Jenny Gilruth was making in her line of questioning.

If councils only have to “have regard to” or “take account of”—whatever form of words you want to use—the plans, that same outcome may come about. Do you not think that the bill needs to be a bit tougher in order to make councils do something with the plans?

10:15

Kevin Stewart

As I said, the wording “take account” would create equality with other aspects of planning. I will bring in Mr Macleod on the use of the terminology and then answer the specific points that Mr Simpson has raised.

Norman Macleod

I will not spend time discussing the distinction between “take account of” and “have regard to”. The important thing is that, if the amendment is made, the words “to take account of” in the bill—the legislative requirement—will be the same for local place plans as for the national planning framework and for local outcome improvement plans. Those plans will be treated in the same way in the legislation. I am not sure that we would want to put one higher than the other, so the legislative requirement on local authorities to take account of various matters would be the same as for local development plans and the national planning framework.

Kevin Stewart

I will now address the specific points that Mr Simpson made. I have not had the opportunity to go to Linlithgow or to speak to the good folk who put together that plan. As folk are aware, I was sent an overview of the document, and I was very impressed with what the community there has achieved. Of course, that was done under the current arrangements. The provision in the bill will mean that communities such as the one in Linlithgow will have a clearer role in the process and planning authorities will be better equipped to take account of the engagement that exists.

I want to see good practice taking hold across authorities and I want to see local authorities taking account of what folks have to say at a community planning level, as in other spheres of business. Terminology in legislation can often be difficult, but, as Mr Macleod pointed out, the terminology “take account” is in the legislation relating to the national planning framework and the local outcome improvement plans.

The Convener

I think that we will leave it at that point, Mr Simpson. Thank you for putting the concerns from Linlithgow on the record. This committee has to mirror the evidence and concerns that we hear in communities, and we have done a lot of outreach work. There are potentially a few supplementary questions, but Alexander Stewart wants to explore a line of inquiry first.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Minister, you touched on the need to improve people’s experience and ensure that communities have their say. You suggested that local place plans may be a vehicle by which to achieve that. Why have you chosen to go down the local place plan route when, in some cases, the same could have been achieved by improving engagement at the stage of drafting the local development plan?

Kevin Stewart

I want folk to be involved in planning much more than they are currently. It frustrates me that a huge amount of the engagement that takes place is at the end of a process, and it is normally an objection to something that is coming forward.

I want folk to play a part in shaping their communities at an early point. In particular, I want young folk to play a role in shaping their futures, because they are the folk who are least involved in the planning system but will be most affected by the decisions that we take in the here and now.

We are not introducing local place plans alone, and I want to see further engagement during the drafting of local development plans, too. As part of the wider planning review, we will bring forward proposals to ensure that planning authorities consult more widely on their development plans, including with children and young people.

I have been mightily impressed by a pilot scheme that has been taking place at Galashiels academy. The Government put some resource in to allow the planning advisory service to carry out a pilot there using the place standard, which I have mentioned. To begin with, they were using the place standard in paper form, but an app has been developed that means there is even more excitement about the project.

It is fair to say that the young folk of Galashiels envisage their place differently from the folks who have, until now, been engaged in the planning process, because they see things differently. Participation is one of the six key themes in the year of young people, but I want that engagement to go beyond this year—I want it to become permanent.

Beyond that pilot scheme in Galashiels, I have a digital task force looking at planning as a whole and at how we can use new technologies to simplify the current system and get more folk engaged. It is key that we get many more people engaged in planning.

However, this is not just about local place plans; it is also about improving communication and getting more engagement in local development plans. It is not one or the other—it is all.

Alexander Stewart

Having the engagement of young people, and having the aspiration and ambition to achieve that engagement, is all good and well—we all probably want to see that—but the big issue is how we ensure that it takes place. In communities in which there is engagement and a structure for it, that could be achieved and expanded. However, ensuring that communities that do not have that structure are not disadvantaged in the whole process is most important. Are we ending up with a two-tier system in which communities that have that process can and do engage while other communities do not?

Kevin Stewart

I agree completely and utterly with Mr Stewart on those points about engagement. I want to see communities that might struggle to become engaged prioritised in terms of resource. I want to ensure that, when it comes to the formulation of development plans, planning authorities widen their communication. I also, without doubt, want to see more young folk involved in the system.

Planning has been described to me by some folk as rather dry, so I want to make it a bit exciting. With technology, I think we can do that. That is why the review is not just about this bill. We are on a journey—in terms of the results of the independent review, the planning bill, NPF and Scottish planning policy—that we need to continue in order that we get more folk involved. Convener, if you will excuse this expression, rather than planning being seen as dry, I want it to be seen as a wee bit sexy and as something that folk want to get involved in.

The Convener

This might be a good time to interject. I am conscious of the lengthy reply that you have given, for which we are grateful, but we have scheduled 2 hours and 45 minutes to spend with you and your officials, which is a huge amount of time. It must be exciting—

Kevin Stewart

I hope that you are giving me a half-time break, convener.

The Convener

We can take a brief break at 11 am, if that would be welcome.

Kevin Stewart

I would be grateful for that.

The Convener

That would be for 5 minutes. I appeal to MSPs and to you, minister, for focus and brevity in questions and answers so that we get the comfort break and have the meeting done and dusted by 12 pm. That is an appeal to everyone.

Alexander Stewart

The minister has identified what we all want to achieve. The bill will enable that to happen if it is resourced, if councils are resourced and if communities are resourced. If they are not resourced, it will fail. How are we going to bridge that gap?

Kevin Stewart

The financial memorandum shows that freeing up folk from doing a huge amount of the bureaucratic stuff saves a fair amount of money. Off the top of my head, I do not know what the number is, but it will come to me. I expect local authorities to use that freed-up resource to deal with the changes that we are making by investing in helping communities to have their say, whether through local place plans or greater engagement. There is a huge opportunity to do that.

I recognise that this committee and other committees have heard a fair amount about resourcing. Over the past few weeks, some local authorities have put additional resource for planning in their budgets, and I am pleased about that. Craig McLaren of RTPI said that, at the moment, 0.44 per cent of local authority budgets go to planning, and RTPI expects that to drop to 0.4 per cent. I hope that the change that we are seeing will mean that planning resources increase.

As I have said previously with respect to resourcing, I would like planning to become cost neutral at some point, so that the fees that come in cover the costs of the service completely. I have also said that I am not willing to increase planning fees again until we see better performance, and in a number of authorities we are beginning to see that better performance.

I do not want to dictate to local authorities how they should spend their money, but you can be assured that I will keep a very close eye on resourcing and performance over the piece, with a view to getting to a point in the future when the service pays for itself.

10:30

The Convener

I will follow up on that, and I note that Jenny Gilruth and Monica Lennon want to ask supplementaries on resource issues, too.

Resources will be an issue. An additional area of complexity with local place plans is that they must dovetail with local development plans. If the local place plan goes off in one direction and the local development plan goes in another, how can they mesh together? How can one be adopted by the other? There must be much closer articulation between a local place plan and a local development plan. I am not sure how that can happen when account must be taken of the national planning framework, too. A degree of meaningful expertise is required to develop local place plans that will have added weight and value in influencing local development plans. That costs money. If an area does not have an active community development trust or is not particularly affluent, there might not be the skill set or the resource available to do that. It would be helpful to have your reflections on how local authorities and Government might target resources.

Kevin Stewart

I do not have the financial memorandum in front of me, and I cannot remember some of the numbers off the top of my head, so I will write to you.

As you are well aware, I have given evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee on resources. If you do not quote me, I can—

The Convener

Minister, for your own safety, I warn you that this is a live session.

Kevin Stewart

I will not be specific. A number of millions of pounds will come into play with the changes to the local development plan system, which will free up resource. I would expect local authorities to look at using that additional resource at their disposal to invest in local place planning and to ensure that the communication of local development planning is right. I do not want to dictate to local authorities, but they will have a huge opportunity to make sure that the freed-up resource goes into ensuring that they get that area of planning absolutely right.

In addition, if the bill is agreed to and becomes an act, we will consult again on the fees structure, including on enhanced fees and discretionary charging, to ensure that it reflects the developments in planning. We will undertake a full impact assessment on the implications of the changes for system users.

I apologise for not bringing the financial memorandum with me, convener.

The Convener

You have answered a really good question, but it was not the one that I asked. I am trying to make the point—which I hope you appreciate—that there could be a need for resources to be targeted intensively at certain parts of local authority areas across the country. Your reply was about what local authorities could do to target some of the money that they might make from efficiencies in their area, but you also mentioned existing national funds that could, in theory, be used.

My contention is that, separate from existing national funds and what local authorities might do, it might be beneficial to establish a pilot fund to target some of our deprived communities across Scotland. I am decoupling that pilot fund from the moneys that are set out in the financial memorandum as being required to make the bill work. A stand-alone fund for such community capacity building would be very welcome as a way to bring to life the bill as and when it is passed. I know that you do not hold the purse strings, but would you give consideration to that?

Kevin Stewart

I would consider targeting the funds that the planning and architecture division has in certain areas to see what the benefits of that would be. I am certainly not promising any additional funding—you would not expect me to—because that would be to go against what is in the financial memorandum, and Mr Mackay would be extremely unhappy with me if I were to promise additional moneys that I do not have at my disposal.

However, I will consider targeting the funds that we currently have to ensure that there is community capacity and resilience in certain places. I reiterate that I expect local authorities to use the freed-up resource to get the process absolutely right in their areas. As I said in my response to Ms Gilruth, I expect more disadvantaged communities to be seen as the priority.

The Convener

Okay. You can let us have more information on that.

I want to mop up a couple of things. Alexander Stewart was talking about local development plans, as well as local place plans. We have talked about the need for early community engagement to be a recurring exercise rather than just a one-off occurrence, regardless of whether there is a local place plan. However, there is no duty in the bill to ensure that there will be stakeholder and community engagement in the development of the evidence report for the local development plans, or during the gate-check exercise. Is that a missed opportunity for community engagement that the Government might want to reconsider?

Kevin Stewart

Our intention is that communities should be closely engaged in the preparation of the evidence report and that the gate check should examine how engagement has taken place and identify areas of agreement or dispute with different stakeholders. There are powers for ministers to prescribe matters to be included in the evidence report and the procedures and matters to be assessed in the gate check. That is in proposed new section 16A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which is inserted by section 3(4) of the bill.

We intend to include the duties for stakeholder and community engagement through the secondary legislation, but I understand the concern of the committee that our intentions for greater community engagement in development planning are not visible on the face of the bill. There are a number of ways in which that aspect might be strengthened, and I will consider what amendments we might lodge at stage 2.

The Convener

That would be very welcome. Other members have supplementary questions on the issue.

Jenny Gilruth

Minister, you spoke about planning becoming exciting—I will not use the other word that you used—but in the annex to your letter to the committee you said that

“it is not always the case that community groups represent the views of their community as a whole.”

Going back to my previous line of questioning on local place plans, community councils are often made up of people of a certain demographic, and perhaps a certain gender as well. Therefore, there might be a disconnect between them and the people whom they are representing.

You spoke about Galashiels academy, and my colleague Andy Wightman and I met pupils from there on Friday. They are a fantastic group of young people who are completely engaged in the process in their area. When we started going through the specifics of the bill with them, they looked at us with blank faces—as we might expect from members of the public. However, when we asked them what their school was like and what a new school might look like to them, they came alive and started talking about it. There is an opportunity to get the voices of young people heard on the bill.

When we talked to the pupils about whether communities were listened to under the current legislation, they thought that there should be some sort of statutory requirement for young people and the wider community to be spoken to. Should this year of young people not be an opportunity for the Government to signal its intent with regard to how important young people’s voices are by mandating councils to listen to the views of young people as part of any planning process? For example, when councils are designing schools, they should have to listen to the people who populate our schools—the pupils and young people.

Kevin Stewart

I am glad that Ms Gilruth and Mr Wightman were excited by the opportunity to meet the folk from Galashiels and hear their views, because those are somewhat different from the views that many of us regularly hear.

I want everyone to become involved in the planning system, but I do not know whether mandating the involvement of particular groups is the right way forward, because we would then have to go through the entire gamut, which might well add to bureaucracy. The regulations for local development plans will certainly set out engagement requirements, and I want to be pretty strong on those requirements.

I will reflect on what Ms Gilruth said about mandation, but we have to be careful about that. However, she can be very sure that I want young people to be involved in the planning system. Beyond that, I want many more people who are currently disengaged from the system to become involved. If we achieve that, we will have much less conflict in the system.

Jenny Gilruth

My point is that, if we get that generational change, people will be far less likely to think that planning is something that is done to them as opposed to being something that they are part of. It is more of a bottom-up approach that I am talking about. That is certainly the view that we got from Galashiels academy, and it would be great if other schools and other young people felt that they had the capacity to engage in the system, or if the system could adapt to engage with a wider audience of people as opposed to a select few who sit on community councils, for example.

Kevin Stewart

That wider audience can be addressed not just through schools or other formal processes. To get complete and utter buy-in from folk, we need to change the way that we do things. Technology gives us the ability to do that. It is quite something to be able to see a three-dimensional visualisation of a place from an iPad as you walk around a blank space seeing what is proposed in an area. If we can do such things on not just a building scale but a place scale, that will ensure that we bring new folk into involvement in the planning system. That really excites me, and I will certainly do all that I can—not just because it is the year of young people—to ensure that young people are involved in the system, because that is vital.

The Convener

I am trying really hard not to cut you off, minister.

Kevin Stewart

I know. I am sorry.

The Convener

I have been a laid-back convener and have let you expand on your answers, but as we move to the last hour or hour and a half of the session, you will find that I will have to start to cut you off.

Monica Lennon

Has the Government considered giving young people statutory rights? That could mean allowing a school community to produce a local place plan or, for example, that a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament could have formal rights to be a consultee in pre-application consultation in the way that community councils have. That would be a way to embed rights for young people as key stakeholders. Rather than just reminding people that they have the opportunity to take part and encouraging local authorities, ministers and others to take young people into account, cannot we just embed rights in the bill?

Kevin Stewart

In some regards, the move that we are making on local place plans should ensure that many more folk are involved in the formulation of such plans and planning as a whole. I have absolutely no problem with schools, young folk or anyone else becoming involved in planning. I probably got overexcited in answering Ms Gilruth but, as I just said, I want that to happen. However, it is not necessary to put that in the bill.

Monica Lennon

I was not asking about involvement. I was asking about rights to be consulted and to propose a local place plan. Are you willing to consider such rights at this stage?

Kevin Stewart

I would expect local authorities to involve as many people as possible in community engagement—as they do with any other consultation. Local place plans will work best when the entire community becomes involved. That is what I want to happen. However, prescribing the inclusion of different groups in the bill is not something that I would agree with.

10:45

The Convener

We will move on to another line of questioning before we take a break.

Andy Wightman

I want to explore the relationship between the national planning framework and strategic development plans, but before I do that, I have a brief question about simplified development zones. Paragraph 7 of proposed new schedule 5A says that

“A request is valid ... if the requirements prescribed in regulations ... have been met”.

The regulations make no reference to the kind of person who could make a request for a simplified development zone. As it stands, it appears that such a request could arise from anybody. My sister lives in Switzerland. Could she make a valid request for a simplified development zone?

The Convener

Mr Wightman’s sister will soon be on the Christmas card list—she has made a few appearances at committee.

Kevin Stewart

I do not know whether I will be on her Christmas card list or she will be on mine. I will bring in Mr McNairney.

John McNairney

There is no restriction on that because proposals might come from a private landowner, for example. Mr Wightman is correct to say that the bill makes no such restrictions and we would need to rely on regulations to define in more detail the requirement for specific connections with the locality or any other restrictions.

Andy Wightman

That is my question. Paragraph 7(3) of proposed new schedule 5A says that regulations

“may, in particular, include requirements as to—

(a) how a request must be made, and

(b) steps that must be taken before a request may be made.”

Absolutely, convener. I, too, am conscious of time.

The bill makes important, significant changes to the national planning framework, how it is handled and how it is regarded. For example, it will be combined with Scottish planning policy and is to become part of the development plan.

I want to reflect on earlier comments about the idea that local authorities should take account of local place plans, which would put them on the same footing as the national planning framework, of which authorities must take account. Although that is literally correct, it forgets that the bill proposes that the national planning framework should become part of the development plan, so it would have a massively enhanced status compared to anything else.

Historically, the national planning framework is a light-touch spatial expression of ministers’ policies. Why did you feel that it was necessary to make it part of the development plan?

Kevin Stewart

The independent panel made the case for that. Many stakeholders have called for an enhanced role for the national planning framework. Incorporating the Scottish planning policy into the national planning framework is a big opportunity to streamline local development plans across Scotland—

Mr Simpson has a specific point on that, for obvious reasons.

Graham Simpson

Minister, I am encouraged to hear what you said. Will you go a bit further? One of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee was that the Government should

“amend the Bill so that significant amendments to the NPF resulting in a change to the overall policy become subject to specific public and parliamentary consultation requirements set out on the face of the Bill.”

Are you saying that you are willing to do that?

Kevin Stewart

I said that I note the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on the issue and will consider them further. We are significantly enhancing Parliament’s ability to scrutinise a national planning framework. I have not had the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for long and I will consider them further at stage 2.

Andy Wightman

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendations on consultation are not what I was asking about. I was asking about whether the national planning framework should be approved by Parliament—which would put it on a more democratically accountable footing—given the fact that it is to be part of the statutory development plan.

As Mr McNairney noted, the bill gets rid of strategic development plans. It is fair to say that your policy memorandum reflects the fact that there have been mixed views on those plans. The committee has to think carefully about what recommendations it is going to make to Parliament on the question. We have had witnesses, such as those from Clydeplan, who have successfully produced regional plans and are keen that they be maintained. In principle, there is no reason why they could not continue under voluntary arrangements, but there is a worry that, if strategic planning—which is a long-standing feature of the planning system—is to be moved on to a voluntary footing, there will be less incentive for planning authorities to engage in it because of resources and other reasons.

In that context, it is notable that research that Kevin Murray Associates did for the Scottish Government in 2014 said:

“This report has addressed the core question of whether the strategic development planning system in Scotland is fit for purpose. The answer is that the system is still bedding in; it is not ‘broken’, nor is its potential yet fully optimised.”

Will you reflect on the evidence that we have heard about the value of strategic regional planning, the high regard in which it is held outside Scotland and whether voluntary arrangements will deliver the same quality of strategic planning as we have had to date?

11:00

Kevin Stewart

I will start off by commenting on the report by Kevin Murray Associates and then I will bring in Mr McNairney. Although the report did not recommend the removal of strategic development plans, its conclusions and recommendations raised similar points to the issues that we are seeking to provide, which include stronger collaborative leadership; greater alignment of vision, strategy and delivery mechanisms; improved community engagement and awareness raising; a more streamlined process for housing needs and demand assessments; better coverage of infrastructure; stronger links with wider community planning; improved action planning; and a focus on delivering outcomes. Together with the wider planning reform, the bill will ensure that many of those recommendations can be implemented.

Before I bring in Mr McNairney, I will speak from a purely practical point of view, as a constituency MSP. One of the things that frustrates many folk who are involved in the planning process or who have tried to become involved in the process is the shift from the local development plan to the strategic development plan—they do not understand how all that is put together, which leads to confusion. They cannot understand why they have been consulted on one plan and then are being consulted on another. In order to simplify the process and get rid of confusion, the bill proposes the right way forward.

I will bring in Mr McNairney to make a comment and I would be grateful, convener, if you will allow me to make a few reflections after that.

John McNairney

We strongly support strategic planning. The national planning framework is a form of strategic plan, albeit a national one. The changes reflect both the findings of the independent panel and, as Mr Wightman has suggested, the different views around the country on the issue.

Currently, the strategic development plans focus on four areas, but there are other parts of Scotland that have cross-boundary issues. The partnership working in different regions of Scotland might change over time. At present, Highland Council, the North and South Ayrshire Councils, Dumfries and Galloway Council, and Falkirk Council are not part of the SDP network. We have sought to provide stronger regional focus. There is already a regional perspective in national planning framework 3, which moves us on considerably from earlier versions. The proposals are simply to strengthen that. We co-produce the national planning framework with planning authorities working over different geographies, to ensure that it can give regional perspectives and more information about regional infrastructure such as housing and so on, in a way that reduces duplication and complexity in the system.

There is a feeling, which I share, that, for a country of Scotland’s size, we are approaching a position in which we have too many plans: we have the national planning framework, SDPs, LDPs and community planning integrating with those, and now we have local place plans. That comes with some baggage if consultation is going to happen in a way that is really inclusive and effective. The focus is drifting towards simply making plans.

What you see here, and what is at the root of your question, is a rationalisation. We think that things can work more effectively with a stronger national planning framework. It should not necessarily be imposed, because it must be co-produced and have a strong element of what different authorities, working together, want to influence.

The Convener

I will take a final supplementary question in a moment. Minister, would you like to comment first?

Kevin Stewart

No, that is fine. Mr McNairney has covered everything.

Andy Wightman

That was very helpful—thank you.

I suppose that, by getting rid of strategic planning as a statutory requirement, the concern is that we would hollow out the process. We will be producing local place plans, but they will not have much statutory effect, and we will have a national planning framework, which does not get much democratic scrutiny but is part of the development plan. We have to grapple with those issues, but I understand the rationale that Mr McNairney has laid out.

Kevin Stewart

The other point to make is that we are in changing circumstances. As Mr McNairney rightly pointed out, we have strategic development plans that cover the four city regions. Many areas do not have anything like that in place, and this is the opportunity for more co-operation at a strategic level between authorities. Ayrshire is a probably a good example to cite. We are hopeful that it will soon get the growth deal right, and that will require strategic development co-operation across Ayrshire. Given what we have seen as things have developed, we know that different things are at play from what we had when strategic development plans were introduced. The city region deals are a prime example in that regard, as Ms Gilruth pointed out earlier.

There are opportunities for an increased level of co-operation in strategic planning without our being prescriptive or making things overly cumbersome for folks who are often confused about the amount of planning that is going on.

The Convener

Before we all get that comfort break, I will ask one more question. The contention was made that the national planning framework does not get democratic scrutiny. My view is that it gets a massive amount of democratic scrutiny. The issue is whether there should be a final vote in the Scottish Parliament. What are the benefits of putting the framework to a vote? Are there any downsides to doing that? On the downsides—I say this with full self-awareness—there is horse-trading on the budget process and deals to be done on whether to sign up to an agreed budget. Might the national planning framework be privy to that, too, were it to go to a vote in the Scottish Parliament? What are the benefits and the drawbacks of that approach?

Kevin Stewart

My personal experience is that the scrutiny of national planning framework 3 was particularly good. As I have said, a number of parliamentary committees were involved in that. Having that level of scrutiny is grand, and I would expect that level of scrutiny to continue. As it stands, and as it is proposed, the Parliament will have a huge amount of oversight of national planning framework 4.

The Convener

I acknowledge that sometimes applicant behaviour and other stakeholders that are involved in the process play a part in planning performance. We have commissioned research on barriers to decision making, so that we can get a more rounded picture of where delays lie. How we view performance has moved on a little bit in recent years. Speed of delivery is still a vital element of good performance, but there is more to it than that.

The planning performance framework and key markers already recognise planning performance as being about whole-service delivery. The policy memorandum states:

“The Bill will increase scrutiny of the full extent of planning authority performance; in how authorities carry out their functions and deliver their services, on the quality of their decision-making and on the outcomes for their areas.”

That sets out the holistic approach to managing and improving performance across all of planning that I want to see. As I said, we have commissioned research and I intend to keep a close eye on the matter. The form and content of performance reports will be defined following consultation and we will continue to work with the high-level working group on planning and other stakeholders to develop that.

Kenneth Gibson

How will the proposed performance monitoring blend in with the performance monitoring that is already in the system? What differences will it make? Will there be any overlap or will it be as seamless as one would hope that it would be?

Kevin Stewart

The bill’s provisions will complement other things that are already in the system. I expect that the provisions will formalise, improve and replace current arrangements. As folk are well aware, we have talked about appointing a performance co-ordinator in the bill. Some folk view that as a massive threat or as me trying to exercise authority or power. However, I view the role of the co-ordinator as ensuring that best practice is exported across the piece to help authorities that might have particular difficulties. I say to those who think that that will be an additional burden that the requirement for local authorities to report what has gone on in their areas is already there in their annual report on performance. I dispute that the appointment of a performance co-ordinator would be an additional burden.

Kenneth Gibson

Why are the functions of the national planning performance co-ordinator and the performance assessor not included in the bill whereas, in other pieces of legislation—for example, on prison inspection—such roles have been included?

11:30

Kevin Stewart

The co-ordinator’s general functions are set out in the bill and the regulations will provide further details of a technical and administrative level—for example, how performance is to be monitored and how often reports should be prepared.

The co-ordinator’s role is separate from that of a person who is appointed to conduct an assessment of the planning authority’s performance. The assessor can be appointed to carry out an in-depth assessment of, and make recommendations on, any aspect of an authority’s performance or its performance in general. The scope of that is to be tailored as appropriate.

I will bring in Mr McNairney for some of the more technical aspects and to save my voice.

John McNairney

John McNairney

We do not have information in every case. The information that we have relates to returns where there are particularly lengthy cases. The authorities provide us with reasons. Sometimes, it might be a staffing issue or workload. It could be an agency’s delay. It could be information that has been sought during the process but not yet been provided. Those are common reasons, as are delays under section 75 of the 1997 act, which probably account for about 50 per cent of the overall processing times for major developments.

We do not scrutinise every case. Where originally agreed timetables are not met, there should be agreement by both parties on what the extended period should be. My understanding is that between 60 and 70 per cent of processing agreements meet the timescale. That is one of the ingredients in taking the view that, overall, such agreements are a good thing.

Kevin Stewart

Alexander Stewart

Do you intend to have a value-for-money situation, then?

Kevin Stewart

It is not just about that. It can be frustrating that I have coming across my desk—as we all do, from time to time—statements such as, “This is a problem—how are you going to deal with it?” and, at the moment, we have nothing at our disposal for dealing with performance.

I always prefer carrot rather than stick; I prefer a light-touch approach where at all possible. I would prefer our role to be the positive one of ensuring that we export best practice right across the country. However, we will see what occurs: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The vast bulk of the issues that cross my desk are not necessarily those that people would expect. It would be fair to say that, in recent times, most of the complaints that I have had about performance are from community groups in relation to certain authorities that I will not name here, convener.

The Convener

Before we move on to the next line of questioning, which will be led by Andy Wightman, I want to make a point. In monitoring performance in the national health service, one of the things that has been brought in is called Care Opinion, through which good, bad and indifferent experiences of the NHS are captured and garnered and put out there almost in real time. One thing that that has shown is that we do not necessarily get to hear about the good stuff alongside the negative stuff.

Could we have a positive side to monitoring performance that captures positive opinions? I am thinking of examples such as an individual who sought to build an extension to their house and had a supportive and seamless planning process, or a community group that made representations in pre-consultation and felt that they were listened to when the substantive planning application was submitted. Is there data out there that could give us a flavour of performance that we are currently missing and is that something that we could act on?

11:45

Kevin Stewart

Monica Lennon

You mentioned the independent panel. According to written evidence from Scottish Environment LINK,

“The issues around equal rights of appeal were not fully explored by the independent panel. The issue was touched on briefly only and not given the depth of consideration such a fundamental issue requires.”

Where is Scottish Environment LINK coming from?

Kevin Stewart

I will bring in Mr McNairney, because he was in post when the independent panel carried out the review. I was not planning minister at the time—

Monica Lennon

But you must have a view on the panel’s work.

Kevin Stewart

I do have a view. If you will allow me to, I will give you that view. I think that it is unfair to say that the independent panel did not take the views of all people. Mr McNairney has more information on exactly what the independent panel did.

The Convener

Before I bring in Mr McNairney, I point out that lots of members have supplementaries, including me. I advise anyone else who wants to come in to get my attention now, otherwise we will run out of time.

John McNairney

The panel issued a call for evidence and took written and oral evidence. It set out a number of questions, not all of which I have in front of me, but one of them concerned the balance of rights and whether improvements could be made to that. That was part of the context in which people offered views. There were people whose view was that there should be a third-party or equal right of appeal and others who took a different view. It was not the case that the review panel did not consider the issue; having considered it, one of its 48 recommendations was that no change should be made to the appeal rights.

Therefore, we did not actively pursue the issue—we did not have a separate consultation on rights of appeal—but we set out our position in the consultation that we issued last year. Throughout the process, people have made their views known. Ministers set out their statement following the recommendations of the independent panel, and it was broadly supportive of those recommendations, including that there should be no significant change to rights of appeal.

Monica Lennon

A couple of weeks ago, we took evidence from Petra Biberbach, who was on the independent review panel. We know that she is on record as not being in favour of equal rights of appeal, but during the discussion she accepted that there should now be a debate on the issue. Why would there need to be a debate on it if it is clearly not the right thing to do? She recognised people’s concerns and frustrations with the system and thought that there should be a debate on the matter.

Kevin Stewart

I recognise people’s frustrations, and the last thing I want to do is add to those. The Scottish alliance for people and places said in its response:

“We are concerned that the introduction of this measure will create further conflict between communities and other stakeholders in our places and undermine the collective ambition for a positive, front-loaded planning system that incentivises participation at the very beginning and throughout the process.”

I agree with that. I would much rather that we deal with this at the beginning, because if at the end of the day we were to equalise rights of appeal, I can foresee that there would be a huge amount of conflict at the end of the process and that not many folk would speak at the beginning of it, which is actually the right time for them to speak to one another.

I will bring in Mr McNairney again.

John McNairney

Stakeholders focus on a particular issue, but the whole system is relevant to this issue. A lot of the frustration for communities is that they do not have the certainty that we want them to have about which sites are going to be developed.

The development plan and changes to it are key, because if we can get better information from developers about how deliverable sites are so that they can be carefully considered and, at the gate check and beyond, we can get everything right, we will have a plan in which stakeholders generally can have some confidence. The problem at present is that shortcomings in, say, effective housing land emerge at the end of the process, and that causes tension for all stakeholders.

12:00

Monica Lennon

That all sounds persuasive, but the bill also proposes that ministers be able to come along and designate simplified development zones, even though a development plan might have been adopted and the community might not want the SDZ. That will introduce more conflict, so it does not seem consistent that you are introducing other processes but firmly closing the door to communities having anywhere near the rights that developers have.

Kevin Stewart

I will not go back to simplified development zones, because everything that I have said about them is on the record.

My great fear is that there is already too much conflict and mistrust in the system. An equal third-party right of appeal can only add to that. In some cases, developers and communities would be much more likely to adopt a tactical approach, aiming to win an appeal rather than to engage at the outset. Initial engagement is absolutely vital. That is why the emphasis in the bill is on dealing with everything at the beginning.

As I have said, we are following the independent panel’s recommendations. It is unfair to say that it did not discuss the issue in depth, because it did. Even though we made it clear from the beginning that the Government was not in favour of an equal right of appeal, those discussions have still taken place at many of the fora that I have attended and many more that Mr McNairney and his colleagues have attended.

John McNairney

As I said, we did not do a separate consultation on rights of appeal, but people have made their views known throughout the past two years.

The Convener

It is reasonable to say that, when it comes to planning, regardless of whether anyone—including the committee, in its call for evidence—explicitly asks for views on an equal right of appeal, they will get them anyway. We have had substantial evidence in favour of and against an equal right of appeal.

Minister, in your letter, you make the point that,

“Since 2014, around 5,500 housing units have been approved”

because of a developer’s right to appeal. Some—not all—of the proponents of an equal right of appeal say that that could be achieved by taking away the developer’s right to appeal. Would that cause you concerns about meeting national house-building targets, for example?

Kevin Stewart

I have the dilemma, but also the huge opportunity, of being in the post that I am in. That leads to different conversations with different people, and it sometimes leads to very strange conversations about some of the issues.

I will give an example. I am sorry if I am going over old ground—I might have told the story before. I spoke to a woman who said, “We desperately need more housing in this area, minister,” and the next line was, “but you canna build it here, here, here and here.” There is a balance to be struck in planning properly for the housing needs of an area. As I pointed out in my letter, other developments that can often be seen as controversial but which are entirely necessary have been decided upon on appeal.

The Convener

I am trying to be helpful—I have given every other set of witnesses an opportunity to put their views on the issue on the record. In the annex to your letter, you mentioned 5,500 families who are currently in houses but who might not have had them if the developer had not had the right to appeal. Do you have concerns about that, or not? You talked about some people having what we might call a nimbyist approach, but would you have concerns about national strategic targets if we were to seek to withdraw a developer’s right to appeal?

Kevin Stewart

That is a possibility. It might not be a national problem, but we could have a situation in a particular area in which a decision had been taken not to build any homes when it was quite clear that there was a need and a demand for housing. If there is not the ability for developers to appeal in such situations, does that mean that we will not build homes and not meet the needs of people in those areas?

The Convener

I have a final question and then I would like other members to come in. I am trying to interrogate the letter that the minister sent to the committee. One suggestion is that recognised community groups should have a right of appeal—which might deal with Mr Wightman’s problem about his sister in Switzerland. I do not think that she would be part of a recognised community group, but she might—you never know.

The point that I am trying to get to is this: I think that what you are saying, minister, is that if we were to go down that road it would be quite difficult to identify what a “recognised community group” would be or would look like. From my local experience, I sometimes agree with folk who say that they just do not want development in their area—I am one of those people, sometimes. We all have our own self-interest and awareness, but I sense from your letter a feeling that there will always be some people who are against things and that an equal right of appeal would, almost automatically, trigger a number of appeals because that is just the position that some people take. Sometimes I am in that position over local development.

Perhaps we could talk a bit about what a recognised community group would look like and how it could be defined. If we were to go down that road, would it just build resistance to developments at the outset of the process?

Kevin Stewart

Defining “recognised community group” would be very difficult indeed and there would be arguments over what one actually is. That is why the Government and I are not in favour of doing that. We could argue about a definition forever.

Some folk have suggested that the recognised community group could be, for example, a community council. However, we all know that many community councils across the country are not reflective of the views of the communities that they purport to represent. I speak only from my experience as an elected member: in the years in which I have been a councillor and a parliamentarian, I have come across folk in groups who have said that they will oppose any development in a community. I have come across a community council that was initially formed to oppose changes to a park, but that was not reflective of the views of that community. Designated community groups having an equal right of appeal would open up a can of worms and create even greater conflict, and might actually lead to a huge amount of community division.

Monica Lennon

I thank you and your officials for attending here today. We look forward to your response to our stage 1 report.

Kevin Stewart

I appreciate the opportunity, convener.

21 March 2018

28 February 2018

7 March 2018

14 March 2018

21 March 2018

Committee Findings

What is secondary legislation?

Secondary legislation is sometimes called 'subordinate' or 'delegated' legislation. It can be used to:

make changes to the law without a completely new Act having to be passed. (An Act is a bill that’s been approved by Parliament and given Royal Assent (formally approved) by the Queen)

give details of how a law will be applied

bring a section (or sections) of a law that’s already been passed into force

Local Government and Communities Committee Stage 1 report

This report was published on 11 May 2018.

Find out what else the Local Government and Communities Committee is doing.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

This committee looks at the powers of this Bill to allow the Scottish Government or others to create 'secondary legislation' or regulations.

It met to discuss the Bill in public on:

20 February 2018

read the official transcript of the meeting

watch a video of the meeting

22 May 2018

read the official transcript of the meeting

watch a video of the meeting

Read the Committee's Stage 1 report on the Bill.

Finance and Constitution Committee

The committee may consider:

the costs of the Bill

whether there has been enough information provided about the costs

The committee questioned the Scottish Government team that looks at the costs of the Bill on:

28 February 2018

read the official transcript of the meeting

watch a video of the meeting

21 March 2018

read the official transcript of the meeting

watch a video of the meeting

Debate on the Bill

A debate for MSPs to discuss what the Planning (Scotland) Bill aims to do and how it'll do it.

Stage 1 debate transcript

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-12421, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on stage 1 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

14:25

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Kevin Stewart)

I am very pleased to open this stage 1 debate on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. The bill sets out the future structure of our planning system. It sets out a new approach to making plans and decisions about how Scotland’s places will develop and grow through greater collaboration between decision makers and those who their decisions will affect.

The review of planning is driving a wide programme of improvements to strengthen and simplify the planning system. The bill is a vital element of that wider review programme, and it will be supported by a suite of more detailed secondary legislation, guidance, the roll-out of best practice, and our collaborative work on national planning framework 4, which we will progress following the bill’s passage through the Parliament.

There has been a thorough and inclusive process to get us here today. The review began in 2015 with the appointment of an independent panel that was made up of users of the planning system. There is a clear line from the recommendations and outcomes from the independent review through to the bill that we now have before us.

Following the panel’s work, we convened a series of stakeholder working groups and conducted two separate public consultations to explore and shape our proposals. My officials and I have continued to engage widely with stakeholders throughout the review, and the proposals are underpinned by an extensive programme of research. Therefore, the review of planning has been highly collaborative from the outset and clear about what needs to happen before any decisions are made about how it will happen. That is entirely reflective of how I see our planning system itself needing to evolve and operate. That should start with good-quality collaboration and truly involve stakeholders at the earliest stages.

I welcome the Local Government and Communities Committee’s comprehensive report and its wide engagement with planning stakeholders, including communities across Scotland, in scrutinising the principles and provisions of the bill. I am pleased that the committee has agreed that the bill can improve the planning process in Scotland and with its recommendation

“that Parliament agrees the general principles of the Bill.”

The Scottish Government has already responded in some detail to the issues raised and the recommendations that the committee has made. I will set out our thoughts on some of the matters that are raised in the committee’s report.

There was some debate in the committee evidence sessions about introducing a statutory purpose for planning, what that should look like, and what matters should be included. I listened carefully to that debate and will continue to reflect on it. I have no concerns in principle about bringing greater clarity about what planning does—indeed, there could be some real benefits in guiding those who operate and engage in the system—but we have to keep in view how the system operates in practice. Taking that into account, I believe that the purpose of planning should be set out in national policy and not necessarily in statute.

The national planning framework is, and has been since its first iteration, an expression of Government policy. Governments now and in the future must be able to develop and implement their policies and strategies.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Does the minister share the concerns of many local councillors around Scotland, from my party and his, who think that the iteration of the NPF in the confines of the bill amounts to centralisation on an unprecedented scale by removing local autonomy and accountability?

Kevin Stewart

No; I completely and utterly disagree with that. During national planning framework 3, immense scrutiny was undertaken by this Parliament, including by five committees, and by people the length and breadth of Scotland who fed their views into those committees. I do not believe one little bit that that is centralisation.

The committee heard that the Scottish Government has a good track record of taking into account Parliament’s views in finalising the NPF. As many members will recall, the Parliament was fully involved in NPF3; the lead committee took evidence and four other committees heard evidence and produced reports. Work on the next national planning framework, which will progress after the bill, will be highly collaborative and engage fully with Parliament. It is important, for example, that Parliament can debate from an early stage the national developments that Scotland needs. However, I maintain that each NPF should be adopted by the Scottish Government of the time. It is a Government strategy, not a bill, and I do not agree that the Scottish Parliament should use a legislative process to amend and approve it.

The bill seeks to remove strategic development plans from the system, but I have always been clear that a strong continuing role for strategic planning in Scotland will remain through the national planning framework and regional partnership working across the country. However, strategic development planning in Scotland has had challenges as well as successes, and we need the system to change so that planning can better respond to the world that we live in.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

Not at the moment—I will expand this point first.

I understand the concerns that have been raised by some about political support and resources being available for strategic planning, so we will look at lodging an amendment at stage 2 to introduce a clearer duty for planning authorities to work together on strategic planning. I want to ensure that we avoid being too prescriptive about that to ensure that we allow for different approaches that reflect local circumstances.

Mike Rumbles

I have looked through each part of the bill. Can the minister direct me to any part that does not give him more and greater powers?

Kevin Stewart

I will point out a number of examples as I move through my speech. I am doing this methodically, so we will come to all parts of the bill in due course.

I welcome the committee’s agreement on moving local development planning to a 10-year cycle and to the alignment with community planning to provide a more coherent vision for communities. That is key to our commitment to effective front loading of the planning system, and linking community needs and aspirations into development planning. Local place plans are another important element in that, and the influence of communities is vital in those areas. That will provide a statutory role for communities in shaping future development and is a golden opportunity to ensure that planning connects with wider efforts to empower communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

I see the bill’s provisions for simplified development zones as a very useful tool to promote leadership in delivering good development and quality placemaking, and to incentivise investment in priority areas. I do not agree with the committee’s suggestion that SDZs should be brought forward only if included in statutory development plans. The proposal has been wrongly perceived as a means to bypass proper planning scrutiny, which is simply not the case.

Some evidence has been presented to the committee on the name and branding of SDZs. I agree that the branding is important for stressing the positive purpose and the opportunities that they will bring, and that they are not simply a rerun of the simplified planning zones that they will replace. The zones are not about deregulation.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

The minister mentioned simplified planning zones, of which there have only ever been two in Scotland. Why is that the case, and why will SDZs be a more fruitful option?

Kevin Stewart

I believe that SDZs can be a more fruitful option because they will be able to empower planning to deliver great places; I will lodge amendments to rename SDZs as masterplan consent areas in order to reflect better that positive role and the role of communities in their development.

There has been substantial evidence and debate about rights of appeal in the planning system. That issue has been well debated throughout the review of planning and, indeed, in previous legislation. I remain committed to delivering on the independent panel’s recommendation of a planning system that fosters collaboration rather than conflict. However, it is clear that people sometimes feel frustrated by the planning system and that is why the bill seeks to ensure that members of our communities can have greater and earlier influence on how their areas will develop.

I have made the Scottish Government’s position on appeals very clear and I agree entirely with the independent panel’s views that stronger engagement at the outset will be much more constructive than adding adversarial appeals at the end. There is already too much conflict and mistrust in the system and a third party or equal right of appeal can only add to that, which would run entirely counter to the positive collaboration that is pursued through the bill.

I am certain that we should not do anything that could restrict the potential for future investment in Scotland by removing or limiting applicants’ right to appeal. Our current planning appeal system has supported the delivery of development—the homes, jobs and facilities that our communities need—with each decision being carefully considered. Many developments exist only because they were approved on appeal. Limiting appeal rights would add further complexity and frustration to the system if it was not clear who had the right to appeal or in what circumstances they could appeal. For example, conformity with the development plan is not always black and white; often it requires judgment on a case-by-case basis.

There is a great deal of consensus on the outcomes that we are seeking, but it is also inevitable with planning that there will be different views on how the system should work. Planning needs to work for all of us, and the changes that we introduce to the system also need to work for all. I am sure that members will agree that we will have to steer a course through all those different views to arrive at a new, coherent and streamlined framework for planning that is fair and inclusive and works for Scotland. I look forward to hearing more views from around the chamber. I will listen carefully and respond to the matters raised, and I will contemplate what further amendments might be appropriate at stage 2 should the Parliament choose to proceed.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

I point out that there is plenty of time in hand this afternoon for interventions and interruptions. I call Bob Doris to speak to the motion on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee.

14:38

Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate as the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee. As the lead committee on the bill, we reported our views on it on 17 May. Our report was 103 pages long, so I will forgive members if they have not had time to digest all of it. Equally, I will not be able to do justice to all our recommendations in this speech, so I will focus on a few key recommendations to provide a flavour of our thinking.

First, I thank everyone who helped us reach our recommendations and conclusions. We had a tremendous response, with more than 300 substantive written views as well as online comments, lively discussions on Skye and in Motherwell, Aberdeen and Stirling, and thoughtful contributions at committee meetings. I also thank the young people who responded to our survey, the students from Galashiels academy who spoke with us and those we met in Linlithgow. I am sure that members will agree that that was part of an extensive engagement strategy by the committee. I also thank fellow committee members and the clerking team for their hard work, collegiate approach and good humour during the production of the stage 1 report.

The bill is intended to improve the system of development planning, give people more say in the future of their places and support the delivery of planning developments. Our role was to examine whether it can deliver on that ambition.

Fittingly, our stage 1 report starts with the purpose of planning. Planning serves a wide range of policy areas—from social development through to economic prosperity. As we heard in evidence, the bill should be clear about the public interest outcomes that planning is to deliver, which will provide more clarity about the planning system’s overarching policy ambitions.

The committee agreed that, if the bill is to deliver on those ambitions, it must set out a shared vision of what planning is there to achieve. I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to

“consider further the best way ... to articulate the purpose of planning in legislation”

and to

“bring forward appropriate amendments at Stage 2.”

Part 1 strengthens the national planning framework by incorporating Scottish planning policy into it. The NPF is then to form part of every local development plan. Under the bill, the NPF will be reviewed every 10 years, and the time for parliamentary consideration will be extended to 90 days.

Some people welcomed the NPF’s enhanced status, but more concern was expressed about it becoming part of local development plans. Some questioned whether that would represent greater central control over local democracy and asked whether, if the NPF is to become a stronger national vision that lasts for 10 years, the Parliament should have a greater scrutiny and approval role.

The committee welcomed the stronger role for the NPF, but we recommended coupling that to greater parliamentary scrutiny. We are therefore disappointed that the minister did not support the committee’s call for a longer time for parliamentary scrutiny than the bill proposes. A period of 90 days does not provide for a lot of parliamentary scrutiny, given that people might not see the draft NPF until it is laid before Parliament for consideration.

What would 90 days mean? It could mean four weeks to consult wider stakeholders; one week to notify witnesses that we would like them to come to our committee; three weeks to take evidence; two weeks to draft a report; three weeks for the committee to deliberate on its report; and the holding of a debate in the chamber. That is a lot to pack into 90 days. Given that and the fact that the NPF will be decided on only once a decade, I urge the minister to reconsider his decision.

The Scottish Government did not accept our recommendation of parliamentary amendment and approval of the final NPF; instead, it distinguished between legislation, which is open to amendment, and the NPF, which is a policy document. The Government said that allowing amendments would add time and complexity to the process and that it has a track record of amending the NPF as a result of parliamentary scrutiny. Committee members and I will listen with interest to the wider Parliament’s views on the parliamentary process for the NPF. However, we welcome the Government’s commitment to provide more supporting information, including impact assessments, once the draft NPF is laid before Parliament.

The bill introduces local place plans, which are intended to empower communities to become involved in designing their local places. We welcome the statutory role for communities and the minister’s proposed amendment to require planning authorities to take account of the plans. I welcome the Scottish Government’s response that councils will have to be clear about how the plans

“have been taken into account”

and that that will

“be considered in examination as appropriate.”

I also welcome the consideration of further amendments to bring further clarity. I say “I”, rather than “the committee”, because the committee has not had a chance to consider the Government’s stage 1 response. However, I am absolutely sure that my fellow committee members will want much more clarity.

The Scottish Government argued that the funding to develop local place plans was a wider responsibility outwith planning, spoke of signposting to funds, outlined what it would consider to be additional support and said that it would consider further how any additional support may be directed towards disadvantaged communities. Our committee wishes to follow very carefully how, or to what extent, that support is directed to disadvantaged communities.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

The committee report draws attention to the frustrations that communities feel about not having some equality of process in the system. Will Bob Doris outline his view and the committee’s conclusions on an equal right or third-party right of appeal? The paragraph on that is short and I was not too clear what the committee was saying on that.

Bob Doris

It will not surprise the member that I will make reference to equal right of appeal when I get to that part of my speech. I can certainly give my own thinking, but I am here to speak on behalf of the committee, not for myself personally. That is an important principle in the stage 1 debate.

On local place plans, we also remain to be persuaded that there is adequate funding and resource available to support communities, particularly disadvantaged communities that stand to gain most from such plans. I urge the minister to consider specific funding to support local place plans, rather than spreading existing community empowerment funding even more widely.

Simplified development zones would be similar to the current simplified planning zones, but the types of permission that are automatically deemed for such zones would be extended to a limit of 10 years. The committee believes that such zones could potentially make a positive contribution to placemaking or delivering infrastructure. Rather than seeing them as representing a sea change in purposeful development, we describe them as a

“discretionary tool in the tool box”.

However, we recommend that only the Scottish Government and planning authorities should have a statutory right to bring forward simplified development zone proposals, although others could put forward suggestions for proposals.

It is disappointing that the Scottish Government is not able to support our recommendation in that area. The Scottish Government’s response seems to equate the matter to limiting the ability of an applicant to submit a planning application. That is not how I view such matters. Any simplified development zone must surely have the strong buy-in of either the local authority or the national Government, and preferably both. I note that the Scottish Government believes that such provisions have not been widely understood, and I acknowledge the minister’s proposal for a name change from simplified development zones and a rebranding to better reflect their purpose. I am sure that our committee will await that further clarity with great interest.

Another issue was the equal right of appeal, which is not actually in the Planning (Scotland) Bill. Let me begin by making specific reference to developer right of appeal. The committee believes that in a plan-led system, such appeals should be allowed only in certain circumstances. We are disappointed that the Scottish Government has not sought to progress that proposal. However, I note that in part 3 of the bill, entitled “Development Management”, in relation to which our committee recommends limiting or deterring repeat applications, local authorities have the power to decline to determine such applications in certain circumstances. We welcome that the Scottish Government has agreed to reconsider that particular issue.

In relation to equal right of appeal more generally, the evidence that we heard largely replicated the long-standing debate on the matter. For example, would an equal right of appeal encourage more meaningful engagement with communities or would it reduce early engagement? Would equal right of appeal deter investment and slow development or is it an important element to rebalancing a plan-led system? The arguments did not change. What is clear to us is that many communities feel frustrated with the current planning system. Our report does not support equal right of appeal, but neither does it seek to close the door on it. Rather, we cast the issue in a wider context and say that planning authorities and developers should engage earlier and more meaningfully with communities in the planning process.

Our committee was not persuaded that the bill improved enough on previous attempts to front load the planning system, and we were not convinced that the proposals in the bill go far enough to address that. We want people to feel involved at all stages in the planning system, and we urge the Scottish Government to look at those issues before stage 2.

Mike Rumbles

On local place plans, the bill states:

“A community body may prepare a local place plan.”

Which community body? What about competing community bodies? What about the conflict that is inherent in different communities? Did the committee look at that issue in detail?

Bob Doris

Yes. The committee looked at that issue in some detail. Just because a body has an interest does not mean that it is a wider community interest. There has to be much more clarity on how we ensure that a community body is truly representative, and we hope that we will get some clarity on that at stage 2. Mike Rumbles makes a very reasonable point. We heard very similar points on equal right of appeal, in relation to ensuring that certain interests are reflective of wider community interests. That is a common theme that runs through the bill.

The Scottish Government has now responded to our stage 1 report, ahead of stage 2, including proposing potential amendments. It is for each individual member—not only in our committee but across the wider Parliament—to decide whether those amendments go far enough, or whether the Government needs to be pushed further.

The committee did not take a position on equal right of appeal because no committee position would hang together on that issue. However, the position on which we hang together is that, if equal right of appeal does not proceed, there needs to be much more and earlier meaningful engagement with communities, as well as co-production of what local development plans look like, with capacity building to make sure that local place plans transform a granular approach to local development planning across the country.

I do not want to abuse my position as committee convener. I will certainly make sure that my voice is known on the issue of equal right of appeal. I say that, for Pauline McNeill’s information, I am not persuaded by the arguments for an equal right of appeal. Other committee members have different views for their own strong and carefully thought-out reasons, which I respect.

That is where we are as a committee on the issue. We are clear that we need to get community engagement right by making sure that it happens early and is front loaded.

I thank Parliament for listening to this consideration of our stage 1 report. I look forward to the debate.

14:50

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Planning is an area that politicians tend to steer clear of on the basis that, whatever they say, they are bound to upset somebody. My view has always been different on the basis that I have a thick skin. I have entered the process that we are in with views shaped by 10 years—some of them bruising—as a councillor, and a main conclusion that I have drawn from that time is that planning is often about who has power, who knows who has power and how that power is used. It is often about money and who stands to gain from what, whereas it should be, but often is not, about making great places that people like and involving people in the process of shaping their areas.

When I first read the bill—it is a difficult read, as the Law Society of Scotland points out—I thought that it was very centralising. My initial impression was right. There are an almost unprecedented 46 delegated powers flowing to ministers; therefore, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which is the committee that I convene, was right to make a series of recommendations that would put in place checks and balances. Parliament should agree that that is necessary.

It is a centralising bill all right. In committee, when I asked the minister to name a section of the bill under which powers would not flow to him, he could not do so.

Kevin Stewart

Let us look at some of the provisions in the bill, and Mr Simpson can tell me whether he considers them to be centralising. More decisions will be sent to local review bodies rather than elsewhere; there will be stronger alignment between spatial and community planning; there will be co-production of the national planning framework; local authorities will have more discretion on fees; and local place plans will be introduced. Are those centralising measures, or will those measures give power back to the people?

Graham Simpson

I am afraid that, as Mr Stewart will find out, section after section of the bill will see powers flow to him. I smell a rat when I see ministers trying to grab more powers than they need. The bill is a power grab.

Too often, planning is about vested interests, decisions leave a nasty smell and we are left to think that something is not right. Those decisions could be for or against development. Funny things sometimes happen when a lot of money is at stake, and we would not want a system in which there was no right of appeal for anyone; we need checks and balances. Similarly, if a council refuses to meet housing targets, it must be right that it can be challenged.

What is the purpose of the bill? No one knows. If it is to deliver more housing, there is nothing in it that would deliver houses in any great numbers. If it is about protecting the environment, our green spaces and our precious wild land or about conserving our buildings, that is not obvious. It could be about all those things. We consider that the purpose should be set out in the bill, and we will lodge an amendment to that end.

The Local Government and Communities Committee produced a report, which was agreed by all its members, that was, frankly, damning. It was also widely praised. It contained important recommendations with which we agree, the first of which was on setting out the purpose of planning. As I have mentioned that issue, I will talk about some of the other recommendations.

The national planning framework sets out ministers’ land use strategy and will include the Scottish planning policy. It will become a more powerful document than before. Local development plans, which will be signed off by the minister, will have to align to the NPF, which will also be signed off by the minister. All roads lead to Edinburgh: it is all about power. The NPF will become such a powerful document that the committee thinks there should be a mechanism allowing Parliament to amend it before agreeing to it. All parliamentarians should agree with that. However, in an almost entirely negative response to the committee’s report, Kevin Stewart did not agree. It is all about power, and he wants it all.

Kevin Stewart

If Mr Simpson had paid more attention to the bill, he would recognise that the national planning framework will have been prepared collaboratively and transparently and that Parliament will have seen the draft that has been previously consulted on before the NPF becomes the proposed version and is submitted to Parliament. Parliament will then have 90 days to look at the national planning framework document, which is 30 days more than it currently has. Those are changes for the better.

Graham Simpson

That was supposed to be an intervention, not a speech. Mr Stewart is not prepared to allow Parliament to amend that document, although it will be much more powerful than it was before. As the convener of the committee has said, 90 days is not long enough.

I will go on to strategic development plans. The committee heard no strong evidence that getting rid of the regional partnerships is necessary. In fact, as we have seen with city and growth deals, the way to deliver strong growth is through regional working. The committee said that things should be left as they are unless something more robust is suggested, and nothing has been suggested. The minister responded to the committee:

“we maintain that strategic planning matters across Scotland could be set out collectively in the National Planning Framework.”

That is the document that he does not want any of us to have a say over.

Local development plans are where a council sets out its proposals for its area, and they will now cover 10 years rather than five, although they could be reviewed in between, which is fair enough. Councils will have to show in an evidence report how they have engaged with communities, but it is far from clear exactly what they are meant to do. The Government says that it will lodge amendments to make things clearer; we will do likewise, just in case. Local development plans will have to be approved by the minister, although, in its technical paper, the Government says that there could be some flexibility to allow plans to reflect local policy. That is good of it.

Local place plans sound like a good idea until we scratch the surface and the gloss comes off as quickly as a coat of paint with no primer. Communities can produce plans for their areas that councils should “have regard to”, which means they could have regard to them and then quickly disregard them. Even the alternative wording, whereby councils must “take account of” those plans, is little better. The worry is that people could spend a lot of time and money producing plans for their area that go nowhere. That is why the committee said that the onus should be on councils to produce the plans in conjunction with their communities.

Mike Rumbles

I agree with much of what Mr Simpson has said. On local place plans, the bill says:

“A community body may prepare a local place plan.”

Is that not a recipe for conflict? Several different community bodies in an area could produce different plans.

Graham Simpson

The convener has addressed that point. The committee took evidence on that point, and that is why we think that the onus should be on councils initially to prepare the plans. However, the Government calls that approach “overly formalised”, perhaps because it would actually work.

There is a deeply worrying section on performance, councillors and training, which contains probably the most draconian of all the measures that are proposed. The Government wants to appoint a planning performance co-ordinator who will snitch on councils if they are not up to scratch, and ministers could order councils to change their ways. What constitutes poor performance is not defined, which leaves the way open for the whole process to become very political. For example, what if a council refuses to grant consent for any more wind farms in its area? It may have good reason to do so, but the Government could define that as underperforming. It is dangerous.

In any case, as we heard from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, councils have been working closely with the Government voluntarily and things have been getting better. The committee therefore called for that section of the bill to be dropped, and we agree with it. Not surprisingly, the Government disagrees. It is all about power.

Kevin Stewart

Will Graham Simpson give way?

Graham Simpson

No.

The Government also wants councillors to be compelled to train and to pass an exam before being allowed to take planning decisions. The minister is not prepared to do the same—he is not prepared to do the training—but he does not see the hypocrisy in that. The committee thinks that that rather barmy idea should be dropped, and we agree.

The bill contains an enabling power to create an infrastructure levy, but the Government has no idea how it would work. The bill does not address the wider issue of funding infrastructure, which is one of the main barriers to development, although it should. We will introduce ideas on land value capture, for example, and we are happy to work with other parties and the Government to do that.

Simplified development zones, which are apparently to be rebadged as masterplan consent areas—I think that they will be going back to the drawing board on that one—are a good idea and could speed things up. However, we want to see an amendment that says where they cannot be set up.

There is little in the bill that we like. It pleases no one other than the Scottish Government. House builders say that it does not deliver for them. Environmentalists say that it does not deliver for them. Communities are unimpressed. It is centralising. It is all about the minister.

Before I close, I should say something about appeals. I have explained why I think they should exist. The committee was very clear that communities should be involved at all stages of planning and asked the Government to think again, but the Government instantly rejected that plea. The fact is that people feel that planning is something that is done to them, not with them. We need to change that perception, and we should stop branding anyone who wants a greater say over what happens in their area as a nimby. We will introduce ideas on how best to involve everyone in the process.

We would vote against the bill at stage 1, but we have an opportunity to rip the bill apart and produce a planning act that delivers, so we will back the bill at this stage.

Moving forward, I extend an olive branch to the Government. If it will work with others, we can get a planning system that we can all be happy with. Planning should work for everyone. It should reject vested interests. We want a planning system that is for the people and with the people—a planning system for all. We want a planning system that is not a power grab but that delivers a better Scotland for everyone.

The Presiding Officer

Before I call Monica Lennon to open for Labour, I clarify that the Conservatives asked in advance whether they could reduce their number of speakers in the debate and give additional time to the opening speaker, which I agreed to—hence the longer speech from Mr Simpson. Everybody else has exactly the same time as usual. Having said that, there is plenty of time to take interventions, and members should feel free to take advantage of that.

15:02

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests and advise Parliament that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Although I am the deputy convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I am speaking today on behalf of Scottish Labour. It would be remiss of me, however, not to begin by thanking my committee colleagues, the clerks and everyone who took part in our stage 1 evidence gathering. The committee’s thoughtful and robust recommendations will help to inform today’s debate. I also thank everyone who sent us a briefing for the debate today.

The creation of the planning system was born of a vision for a healthier and more equal society. Without planning, there would be chaos in our communities. Our built and natural environments have benefited from planning, but some decisions that have been made in the past have embedded inequalities in our communities.

There is much to celebrate about planning, but there is room for improvement. People used to ask me where I worked, and when I said that I was a planner, they immediately thought of the person who came round to inspect their neighbour’s conservatory. Planning is often portrayed as bureaucratic and a bit dry, but planning is fundamental to every aspect of life—homes, jobs, health and wellbeing, transport, and climate justice.

Alex Cole-Hamilton

Monica Lennon is right that planning impacts on so many areas other than the built environment. Does she share my concern that the bill is happening in isolation from the review of transport and the forthcoming legislation that will come out of it?

Monica Lennon

Alex Cole-Hamilton is right on the broader point that we cannot look at planning policy and strategies in isolation. The committee tried to press that point during our evidence sessions, because planning determines our connections to the wider world. Where we live can determine how happy we are, how much we earn and how long we might live.

Planning can also be exciting. We were really impressed by some of the representations that were not about trying to stop things or contain development, but about celebrating the culture in our communities—the “agent of change” principle, about which people had not really heard—and how we protect grass-roots music venues, for example. I know that the minister has made some commitments on that front, which will please the Music Venue Trust and others, but those are the kinds of things that we could embed in the bill in order to give people certainty and ensure that we protect our most important assets.

Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)

I have seen the minister’s response to the committee’s recommendation. Does Monica Lennon share my disappointment that the minister has not yet been persuaded of the case for including the “agent of change” principle in legislation and in the bill? The point that the Music Venue Trust put to the committee was that although guidance and policy are welcome, they are not binding in a court of law in the way that statutory provision is.

Monica Lennon

I agree with Lewis Macdonald. From reading about what is going to happen in England’s planning system, I think that people there are more persuaded to put that principle into legislation. There is still time for the minister to consider that; we can share the article that the committee looked at.

We need to get better at explaining why we plan and for whom we are planning. During the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, it troubled me greatly that many people feel disconnected from decisions that affect them. Planning decisions have an impact not just for the days and weeks immediately ahead, but for the long-term future. The Planning (Scotland) Bill follows from the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006, which amended the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and we were promised planning modernisation.

The most striking feature of the system in recent years is that investment in planning has fallen off a cliff. RTPI Scotland has described the situation as a “crisis of resourcing”; for example, planning authorities have axed almost a quarter of their staff since 2009. Less than half of 1 per cent of local authority budgets is spent on planning. Other specialists who support planners in their work, including environmental health officers, landscape architects, roads engineers and many more, have also been cut.

Planners who work in the public sector work very hard, as they do elsewhere. However, in its written evidence, Unison said that

“Delays in the system are caused by severe cuts to planning budgets”

and it talks about how staff are under severe pressure and highly stressed. That does not really paint a good picture. Unison repeats the point about planning needing resources and not simply needing reorganisation.

The Law Society of Scotland said that

“the Bill is difficult to follow”,

which does not sit well with the approach of trying to make planning more inclusive and easier for people to engage with.

Fundamentally, one of the most obvious flaws of the proposed legislation is that it lacks definition. On the most basic level, how can we reform the system to improve it if there is no clear stated purpose for planning from which to work? Having a stated purpose for planning is supported by a wide range of stakeholders, and after listening carefully to the evidence, the committee recommended that a purpose should be included in the bill.

As Professor Cliff Hague explained in his oral evidence to the committee:

On Friday, the Scottish Government responded positively to that recommendation. Many of us look forward to progressing discussions on a purpose for the planning system at stage 2.

The approach that we take to the planning system should be a rights-based approach that acts to manage land use in the long-term public interest. The committee reflected—I agree—that the purpose of planning should reflect Scotland’s international obligations, including the United Nations sustainable development goals. The planning system is central to delivery of our commitments on human rights and achieving a fairer society, and the principle of equality should be embedded throughout the planning process.

It is therefore deeply disappointing that we heard evidence from Engender that the equalities impact assessment for the bill was “exceptionally bad” on gender. That is not a good report card.

Although the bill is silent on appeals, the evidence that the committee heard confirmed that the status quo is clearly not working for our communities. Previous attempts to front load the system and to improve community engagement at the beginning of the process have not been successful. I agree that we need to strengthen the plan-led system. However, if we are to do that, it is necessary to equalise appeal rights. That would afford communities a limited right of appeal for situations in which an application that is not in accordance with the development plan is approved, while setting a threshold on the appeal rights of applicants when development that is in accordance with the plan ends up being refused, which Labour believes is not fair. That should deter speculative applications and allow resources to focus all minds on proposals that are consistent with the development plan.

In a strong plan-led system, in which a collaborative culture is valued, there should be a limited need for appeals. We should be getting the right decisions first time around. Planners are more than capable of assessing whether something is in contravention of the development plan, and they used to have report to Government on that basis.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can you begin to wind up please?

Monica Lennon

Any measures for an enhanced role for the national planning framework should go hand-in-hand with increased parliamentary scrutiny.

In many ways, the bill has been a missed opportunity. At this stage, Scottish Labour will support the general principles, but we are clear that the bill will require significant amendments at stage 2 to make it fit for purpose. We will engage constructively. We want to see a planning system that works for the many and not the few.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Andy Wightman—I will be generous with you as well, Mr Wightman.

15:14

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

As Monica Lennon did, I thank fellow committee members, clerks and the many individuals and organisations who submitted oral and written evidence to the committee, as well as those who provided briefings for today’s debate.

As Graham Simpson pointed out and as the minister said in evidence to the committee, planning is a topic that too frequently is regarded as dull, technical and bureaucratic. That is perhaps because the process is indeed complex, and the legislation even more so. The bill amends the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and, as it stands, it is virtually impossible for the public to understand what it means. I understand that the minister is anxious that the public should be more engaged in the planning system, and particularly in the process of making plans; I agree with him, but whether the bill will achieve that is an open question. Indeed, I find it hard to discern with any clarity what the general principles of the bill even are.

I believe that we need to shift the focus of Scottish planning towards a system that places the plan more firmly at the centre of the process, thereby reducing discretion to have regard to other material considerations; making compliance with the plan the determinant of who, if anyone, is allowed an appeal on the merits of a decision; empowering communities and planning authorities to create broadly supportive plans; capturing for public benefit the windfall gains to landowners; and strengthening professional input to the process by properly resourcing the planning system.

I will reflect briefly on some of the key elements of the bill. On the purpose of planning, which has been mentioned, I am pleased that there is broad agreement that the bill should, for the first time since 1947, enshrine in statute the purpose of planning. I know that the minister is a big fan of the 1952 Aberdeen city plan. Tom Johnston, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote the foreword to that plan, which he opened by observing:

“The alternative to planning is no planning: it is chaos and waste”.

Indeed. The purpose of planning is, at the very least, to prevent chaos and waste; more positively, it is to promote the allocation of land in the public interest for the common good.

Kevin Stewart

I had no intention of mentioning the Aberdeen local plan of 1952, but Mr Wightman has enticed me into it. In that same foreword, Mr Johnston also said—I paraphrase here—that it would be a great plan if delivered, and the only thing that would stop delivery would be the red weevils of bureaucracy. Does Mr Wightman agree that the bill will lead to simplification and will get rid of some of the red weevils of bureaucracy and make it easier for people to understand the process?

Andy Wightman

The red weevils of bureaucracy are indeed a problem in the planning system, although I am not convinced that the bill will deal with that. We can have an on-going discussion about those red weevils and other insects as we proceed.

The bill also makes significant changes to the national planning framework. As others have said, it incorporates Scottish planning policy into the national planning framework and it incorporates the national planning framework, together with local development, into the development plan for a planning authority area. That is a very significant change.

The committee believes that, given the enhanced status of the national planning framework, it should be subject to parliamentary approval, to mirror the democratic approval given to local development plans. It is disappointing that the minister disagrees, arguing:

“The National Planning Framework is not legislation, it is policy.”

Indeed, he said in his opening remarks that the national planning framework is

“an expression of Government policy.”

However, if it is true that it is merely an expression of policy, it should not form part of a development plan, because the development plan is about plans.

Elsewhere, strategic development plans are to be abolished. Again, the committee disagrees, unless a more robust alternative is created. In particular, it is inappropriate to incorporate strategic planning in a national planning framework because, in my view, that undermines the role of existing planning authorities. Local place plans are another element of the bill that causes concern. In principle, they are a great idea but, without an enhanced status in development planning, they risk raising expectations and frustrating communities.

Over the past few decades, the private developer, rather than the public authority, has become the prime mover in the planning process and, as a result, public trust has been eroded. Powerful private interests and money have corrupted the public interest, which was embodied in the original 1947 act. The bill is an opportunity to turn things round.

One of the problems is that British planning is a highly permissive system, with a wide latitude to depart from the plan where material considerations can be invoked. As Dr Andy Inch from Planning Democracy said in oral evidence, the planning system

“is adversarial because of the discretion that exists at the end of the process, which, by and large, means that speculative development applications are put forward and people react to them.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 February 2018; c 46.]

So long as applicants can appeal decisions that they do not like, confidence in a plan-led system is undermined. An ambition for up-front planning has to be matched by the integrity of the plan. In such a scenario, no appeals should be allowed at all, and a properly considered determination should stand as a final word. That is why, in my view, the bill must be amended to reform the current appeals system. As the architect Malcolm Fraser noted in oral evidence:

“The simple solution is to allow nobody to appeal.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 7 March 2018; c 76.]

The continuing resistance of ministers to acknowledge that issue is dispiriting.

Six minutes is not sufficient to set out the Greens’ views on the bill. Suffice to say that there is work to be done. That is why I have launched a consultation on reinstating provisions to allow public authorities to acquire land at existing use value, and we will be launching further consultations on improving tree protection and on reducing ministerial discretion by putting material considerations and ministerial call-in powers on a new statutory footing.

Many people submitted evidence to Parliament arguing that the bill should be bold and transformative. The bill fails to achieve or deliver any of those aspirations. It concentrates further power in the hands of ministers, pays lip service to genuine public engagement and removes valuable strategic planning powers.

Greens believe that planning can and must be a force for good for delivering high-quality environments, reducing inequalities and promoting the public interest in the use of land. To that end, substantial amendment is required. If the bill before us was the final bill, we would be voting against it tonight. However, it can be improved, so we will vote to keep it in play.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that I can be a bit generous with time. That applies even to you, Mr Cole-Hamilton.

15:21

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

I am truly honoured by your latitude, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much.

I do not sit on the Local Government and Communities Committee, but I am sighted on the bill and I have some thanks to give to my Opposition counterparts who have walked me through the earlier foothills of the process. I would also like to extend my thanks to the many Lib Dem council groups that have offered opinions in our consultation on what to do on the bill, but I think that we shall stand alone tonight in our opposition to the fundamental principles behind the legislation. That is because, as Liberals, we could never endorse or accept a precept that suggests that ministers or civil servants in Edinburgh who have charge of a much strengthened national planning framework are better placed to understand the needs and aspirations of our local communities than are elected councillors.

The bill relegates local authorities to being consultees, in the main, and it gives priority to the grand designs and unfettered powers of the minister, given the powers that will be conferred on Scottish ministers as a result of the legislation. We are often told in the Parliament that we get a piece of planning legislation, or a planning bill, every 10 years. This bill is something of a disappointment, and we have heard eloquent speeches across the chamber about the deficiencies that can be found in its pages.

It is a bill born of a review, and although I make no judgment on the qualities of the people who undertook that review, it was established with no real objectives, it had no planners among its panel, and it had very ambitious timescales, which forced it to leave out a critical analysis of key issues that should have affected it. I am thinking of the profile of the housing market as it has been in Scotland since 2008, for example, and the significant infrastructure problems that we see in developments that have already been given consent, particularly around transport.

I want to focus on transport. Given that we have an on-going transport review and that legislation will ultimately come from it, I find it astonishing that there should be such a profound dislocation between that process and this one. In my constituency of Edinburgh Western, we have suffered a proliferation of housing development by increment over the past 20 years, and there has been a failure to recognise that those developments are astride two of the most polluted, and most congested, arterial routes into Edinburgh.

It is in the centralisation of the process in the national planning framework that we have the most problems. There is a lack of clarity around that and although I am grateful to the minister for giving some clarity on the NPF, it is not the clarity that I was looking for. He talks about co-production, but it seems that Parliament will be shown the national planning framework and given 90 days to consider it, but will have no power whatsoever to amend it. That is an unfettered power that we cannot accept. It relegates local authorities and their local development plans to the level of delivery tool. The approach fundamentally undermines autonomy and accountability.

I understand that the Scottish National Party Administration might like the SNP administration in the City of Edinburgh Council to duck the blame for the monstrous betrayal of trust in places such as South Queensferry, with the South Scotstoun development, and Cammo, where the Cammo estate is zoned for planning. The Edinburgh SNP has paid no heed to the impact of such development on doctors’ surgeries and road infrastructure and has betrayed the people who sent it to form the council administration. It wants to say, “Don’t blame us. Blame the civil service and the Scottish ministers. We are just delivering their plans.” Well, I am not having it.

I will talk about some of the specifics of the bill. Although we will oppose the bill’s general principles, we will attempt to salvage the bill by amendment at stages 2 and 3.

Bob Doris

The member says that he objects to the general principles of the bill because he objects to centralisation. Does that mean that Liberal Democrats would scrap the right of ministers to call in applications? That is centralisation, is it not?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

We have profound concerns about the centralised delegated powers that the bill will confer on the Scottish ministers. My colleague Mike Rumbles has been muttering “George Orwell” throughout the debate, and he is not far wrong.

We will attempt to salvage this dog’s breakfast of a bill at stage 2. We are concerned, for example, about the removal of the main issues report stage, because all stakeholders regard the main issues report as a transparent means of consulting. There is a pervasive view that once a draft plan has been prepared it is set in stone.

Kevin Stewart

How many of Mr Cole-Hamilton’s constituents have told him that the main issues report is one of the most confusing aspects of the system and puts them off getting involved in planning? The bill is about simplification in order to get more people involved at all stages, including in the formulation of local development plans. Why would he want to keep something that puts many folk off getting involved in the planning process?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I am grateful to the minister for his intervention, but if his definition of “simplify” is to delete entirely something that is regarded by many people as an important toehold in the planning landscape, we have a profound difference of opinion.

I share with many speakers, and with Mike Rumbles, who has intervened in the debate several times, concerns about local place plans. Local place plans are attractive, but it is not clear how they will interact with local development planning or how issues between community groups who develop local place plans for the same area to conflicting ends will be resolved.

It is also not clear how the local development planning infrastructure and the newly enhanced national planning framework can be democratically updated. It is not fair to talk about co-production if only one person at the table can influence change.

I have some sympathy with the removal of an applicant’s right of appeal, but we will watch with interest the debate in that regard.

I am glad to see the John Muir Trust represented in the public gallery today. We need the bill to contain enhanced protections and designations for wild land.

I want the bill to say something about section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Too many developers are quitting the field after taking the money from huge and profitable developments and welshing on the deals that local authorities thought that they had made around planning gain. We need to introduce a bond system that toughens things up and gives local authorities teeth, so that they can get developers to deliver on their commitments.

I am aware that Liberal Democrats stand alone in direct opposition to the principles of the bill. I have spoken about the unfettered power that the bill will confer on ministers and our concerns in that regard. The approach is the antithesis of what Liberals stand for: we believe that power is best delivered when it is delivered closer to the people. We will work towards that end during the next stages of the bill.

If a planning bill happens every 10 years, this one is a profound disappointment.

15:29

Jenny Gilruth (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)

I thank the clerks to the Local Government and Communities Committee for all their work in helping to pull together our report ahead of today’s stage 1 debate. I also thank my fellow committee members for the collegiate way in which we worked to put it together, which has perhaps not been evident from all the speeches that we have heard thus far this afternoon.

People often do not consider the planning system until it is on their doorstep. For example, when an application is submitted to build houses across the road, suddenly there is community uproar. Of course, the purpose of planning goes far wider than that. As Andy Wightman alluded, our committee report notes that the planning system is essential not only to delivering outputs such as a high-quality environment, warm and secure homes and national infrastructure but to helping to fulfil climate change obligations, achieve sustainable development goals and protect wider human rights. Community engagement is, therefore, paramount. However, in order to get community buy-in, we need to challenge power imbalances.

In 2018, the year of young people, we have a real opportunity to facilitate behaviour change in the next generation and to ensure movement away from a reactive planning system. Nearly 60 per cent of the young people who responded to our online survey said that they would be likely or very likely to become involved in local place plans, with 78 per cent considering that there should be a duty on communities who draft such plans to consult young people.

Back in March, Andy Wightman and I had the pleasure of meeting in Parliament pupils from Galashiels academy to discuss the legislation that we are debating today. Any member who has tried to use planning terminology with teenagers will have soon recognised one of the main issues that is faced by the legislation: the lack of plain English. We cannot talk about local development plans or local place plans to 15-year-olds without first explaining what we mean. However, when I asked the pupils questions such as, “Tell us about your school. What is it like?”, “Do you need a new one?” and “Why is that important?”, their response was immediate. That was an important reminder to me about the use of appropriate terminology. More than that, it should be a reminder to all of us of the importance of the planning system in giving voice to communities and to groups who often feel left out of that process—especially given that 2018 is the year of young people.

On that subject, I am particularly grateful to Chris Ross for the submission from the Scottish Alliance for People and Places, which notes at recommendation 5:

“Engagement should be inclusive, in particular requiring the views of children and young people to be taken into account through the planning process. Children and young people will live longest with the decisions made today. The UK is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force in the UK in 1992. Article 12, the right to form a view and to be heard in matters that affect them, and Article 31, the right to play and participate freely in cultural life, underpin our obligation to enable children and young people to participate in the decision-making processes that will affect all of us. We believe that children and young people’s voices and their participation must be given meaningful weighting.”

As the minister told the committee in written correspondence earlier this year,

“it is not always the case that community groups represent the views of their community as a whole”.

The minister is well aware that community councils are often represented by a certain demographic that can exclude the views of young people. Nevertheless, there is real interest among young people in how they can be listened to more broadly—for example, in planning and designing their own schools. I worry that, if we continue to rely on the traditional routes of consultation, via community councils, their views will be lost. There is an opportunity to look more widely at how consultation is conducted.

Kevin Stewart

I am glad that Ms Gilruth mentioned Galashiels academy—which is in your constituency, Presiding Officer—because it has been taking part in a wee project with Planning Aid for Scotland on place standards. Its pupils are, therefore, probably more in the know on planning matters than other young people in Scotland. I am very keen to see much more use of digital technology such as 3D visualisations play a part in the planning system. Does Ms Gilruth think that that would encourage young people to get more involved?

Jenny Gilruth

Yes, I do. I was a teacher, and I think that any new thinking outside the box on how to engage young people will be a positive in getting them engaged in the planning process.

Even in speaking to those pupils from Galashiels academy, it was clear to me that traditional planning terminology does not resonate with teenagers. That extends more widely, too, as I have seen in speaking to other members of the public. The planning system is quite clunky, and Andy Wightman alluded to the fact that the rhetoric is quite impenetrable in parts. We need to think about our language as far as wider community engagement is concerned.

That brings me neatly to local place plans. Paragraph 143 of the committee’s report notes:

“Under the Bill, a Community Council or other community body ... will have the power to produce a LPP. A completed LPP can be submitted to the relevant planning authority, which must have regard to its contents”.

My concern, which has been highlighted by other members, is about the use of the phrase “have regard to”. There is a real danger that local communities could invest in preparing and submitting a local place plan only for it to be ignored in the development plan. In February, Dr Andy Inch from Planning Democracy told the committee:

“A risk of a weak status for local place plans in decision making is that communities and others can invest hundreds of hours and huge amounts of voluntary time and effort into producing the local place plans, only to find that subsequent decisions broadly disregard their provisions.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 February 2018; c 5.]

An equalities argument can also be made in the same context. Bob Doris touched on the issue. In an area where there is no active community council or community body, there is a danger that certain communities’ views will not be listened to. I raised that concern with the minister when he appeared before the committee in March, particularly in the context of the Edinburgh city region deal, which takes in my constituency and some of the poorest parts of the country. I remain in the dark as to what consultation Fife Council carried out to ensure that we were included in that deal. There is a danger that poorer communities can be disadvantaged if they do not have the capacity to engage in the process.

If we consider that the wider purpose of planning is to drive sustainable growth and even to facilitate human rights, it is important that all communities start on an equal footing. In recommendation 190 of its report, the committee noted:

“As things stand the proposals for LPPs run the risk of being disregarded or ineffective. The Committee firmly believes that communities should be supported to help develop plans for their areas. We suggest that councils, at the start of the Local Development Plan process, should put out a call for people to help them develop local place plans and show how this has been done in the Evidence Report.”

I was therefore delighted that the minister said in his response to the committee’s report that the Government intends that planning authorities will have a “legal requirement” to take into account local place plans in all cases.

Before I sum up, I will mention the submission that the committee received from Engender, which Monica Lennon touched on. It highlighted concerns about the robustness of the equality impact assessment, particularly with regard to gender. Engender argued that, thus far, consultation has been predicated on community empowerment as opposed to targeting marginalised groups such as women, and Suzanne McIntosh from Suzanne McIntosh Planning Ltd noted:

“The planning process is where the start of the story begins and engaging, particularly women in the creation of place, and understanding how we use places will go some way to understanding this issue and creating a more balanced, equal society.”

I understand that the EqIA is in the process of being updated and that Government officials have offered to meet Engender to discuss the matter further.

Whether we are talking about women or young people, it is clear that different groups face different problems in participating in our planning system, but I am hopeful that the bill will seek to challenge that and that it will provide opportunities for greater engagement right from the outset, whether through the work of organisations such as PAS in local schools, through local place plans that go wider than traditional community councils or through meaningful engagement in the context of the local development plan. It is clear that planning matters to everyone. With the bill, we have an opportunity to move planning beyond its traditional parameters and to really make a difference to the places where people live.

15:37

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. Planning can be controversial. During my 18 years as a councillor, I witnessed how it can divide a community and cause conflict. However, we have an opportunity to improve confidence in the system, and I am encouraged that the bill gives us limited scope for dealing with day-to-day aspects of the planning process. Today’s debate and future debates on the bill give us the opportunity to work towards the achievement of some of those goals, but there is still a long way to go, because many people are disappointed with what is in the bill. Ministers must take cognisance of that.

As other members have mentioned, one of the more positive aspects of the bill is the part of it that deals with local place plans. We acknowledge that the intention to give a statutory underpinning to communities that want to develop their aspirations is a good thing, but we must ensure that the provision in the bill does not simply pay lip service to communities’ ambitions. We have raised concern about the wording—the requirement that planning authorities must “have regard to” local place plans is simply not strong enough. The provision needs to be tougher, as many of the people who gave evidence to the committee said. We want communities to feel that their evidence is listened to. I was delighted to hear the views of the organisations and individuals who took time out to come and tell us about their concerns.

The Scottish Government’s commitment to amend the bill and ensure that authorities must “take account of” local place plans is welcome, but the bill must not allow authorities to pick and choose which plans are more appropriate, as that would lead to the possibility of disappointing communities that have given time to the process.

Bob Doris

I am really pleased that you are focusing on that area, as local place plans are fundamental. On what “take account of” means, do you agree that it is vital that local authorities have strong evidence of how they have taken account of a local place plan and changed their local development plan? Do you also agree that, if they have rejected aspects of the local place plan—which is allowed if there are strong, compelling, open and transparent reasons for that—that decision, too, must be evidence based if the approach is to mean anything?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Bob Doris used the “you” word. I am beginning to lose hope, but we will keep telling members not to use it.

Bob Doris

Apologies, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Does the member agree with Bob Doris?

Alexander Stewart

The member makes very good points about what we are trying to achieve. However, I have concerns that that will not be achieved. As we have heard, the minister will potentially have the opportunity to go into a planning department, deal with it and take control of it if proposals are not put forward. I still have some way to go to be convinced by that process.

Local place plans present a real opportunity to improve local communities’ perceptions of and involvement in the planning system but, if communities are to spend time on those plans, they must be of material consideration.

I welcome the bill’s provisions to introduce simplified development zones, which will expand the types of development for which planning permission is not required and simplify the process. In some cases, simplified development zones could be very positive, as they could give us the opportunity to deliver infrastructure. A simplified development zone would require the authority to prepare a scheme that detailed the types of development and the nature of uses that would be permitted. Given that such a scheme would include things such as road construction and listed building consents, it is important that proposals for such zones be included in the national planning framework or local development plans, to ensure that they are fully consulted on.

Infrastructure is a vital consideration in developing an area.

Monica Lennon

I am listening intently to what is being said about simplified development zones—masterplan consent areas, or whatever their new name is. We would all like to believe that they will magically make development happen. The member talked about infrastructure. The fact that something is put in the plan does not mean that the money for it will magically appear. What is in those SDZs or masterplan consent areas that will bring budget? We cannot just ask developers to bring sacks of money; that is not realistic. Where will the money come from to make the infrastructure appear?

Alexander Stewart

Monica Lennon makes a valid point. We need to ensure that the money goes where the opportunities are. If there is to be a development structure and progress, money must go with that. That has happened in the past, so it should not be too difficult for it to happen in the future.

Often, one of the biggest concerns for local residents when there is significant expansion of housing in a community is whether the existing provision can cope with that expansion. The current process for requiring developers to make infrastructure contributions through section 75 agreements can be limiting, given that there are already restrictions on the infrastructure. Therefore, the proposal to introduce an infrastructure levy is interesting. If that is done properly, such a levy could—but only “could”—unlock additional development land.

However, there are a number of problems with the specific proposal in the bill. The proposal would bring in about £75 million annually at most, which is around 1 per cent of the £7.5 billion that the Scottish Government has estimated would be sufficient to deal with infrastructure developments across Scotland. Moreover, it is very concerning that the powers in the bill as it is currently drafted would enable the Scottish ministers to redistribute the levy funds across Scotland. A power grab has been talked about, and that is yet another example of the SNP’s centralisation agenda.

That is especially disappointing in the light of the good intentions behind the local place plans. There is a fundamental and long-established principle that money that is raised locally should be spent locally. The Scottish Conservatives will continue to defend that principle robustly.

I support the general principles of the bill and acknowledge that it will make some positive changes. It will not radically reform the planning system, which is a difficulty for us. To that end, as my colleague Graham Simpson said, we will vote for the bill to progress to stage 2 despite our reservations, and we will ensure that there is a robust debate, as the bill should be strengthened. I hope that the Scottish Government will engage constructively with everyone in and outwith the chamber so that amendments can be lodged that would enhance the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must stop now. You have had a fair crack of the whip.

Alexander Stewart

I look forward to playing my part in the process.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sure that you do. Thank you.

15:45

Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

I am not a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, but I am pleased to speak in this debate and I thank the committee members for their report. Planning is a very important issue to not just local communities but elected members.

I welcome the stage 1 consideration of the Planning (Scotland) Bill, which aims to strengthen and simplify the planning system. There has been a lot of talk about that and I am sure that, as we move on to stages 2 and 3, we will see whether the bill will simplify the system, particularly for the local communities that it serves. Economic growth for the whole country—not just my constituency—will come from having a better planning system.

Part 1 of the bill seeks to strengthen and reaffirm the role of the development plan and the plan-led system. Part 1 enhances the status of the national planning framework, as the Scottish planning policy would be incorporated into it and it would become part of the statutory development plan. As has already been said, the bill removes the requirement to produce strategic development plans and restructures the process for the production of local development plans, putting a greater emphasis on the delivery of development.

Part 1 includes a new right for communities to produce their own plans, which is an excellent idea. Local involvement is crucial for the bill, which I will say a wee bit more about. I take on board what the minister said about local plans, but I have a number of questions. Perhaps the questions can be replied to here or elsewhere. I realise that the issues might come up at stage 2.

If a council’s local development plan does not give due consideration to or apply recommendations from local place plans, will the communities that produce local place plans have any right of appeal, and will the Scottish ministers intervene? What support will be offered in order to set up and produce a local place plan, and will that be monetary support, or just the expertise of council planning officers? How will local place plans work with regard to the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015?

I thank Age Scotland for sending a briefing with regard to older people, as local place plans could be instrumental in delivering aspirations such as prioritising housing for older people, introducing national targets, identifying land for older people’s housing—an issue that is often raised in my constituency—and initiatives, projects and services that are designed to promote intergenerational living, which is a huge issue and a good way of looking at things. I wonder whether those things will be taken into consideration in local place plans and councils’ local development plans.

I must raise local issues, as other members have done. The local issue that causes the biggest controversy in my constituency is private student accommodation. We all understand the need for student accommodation provision, but concerns have been raised about the negative impact that its influx—in my constituency and others—has on the sense of community, the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure. In the Glasgow Kelvin constituency, 65 per cent of planning is for private student accommodation, which amounts to thousands of people. We have spoken about the effect on local populations, general practitioner services, dental surgeries, road cleaning and all that type of thing, so will that be dealt with by the Planning (Scotland) Bill?

In my constituency, there is very little land left to build on and any available land has been bought up by developers for student accommodation. Unfortunately, we do not have land in Glasgow Kelvin for building affordable housing. When housing associations bid for land, they are outbid by bigger developers. There is therefore a critical shortage of housing in my constituency and I would like that to be looked at.

I know that the City of Edinburgh Council has given practical effect to a requirement that student housing be part of mixed developments rather than just standalone student accommodation, which is a very good idea that should be looked at further. I thank my colleagues on Glasgow City Council who have brought forward provisions on planning such that overprovision can be part of an objection to planning developments. The council has also embarked on a huge consultation exercise with the people of Glasgow to see what they think of local housing and student accommodation in their areas, and I thank it for that.

I know that Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, is looking at the issue of short-term lets, such as Airbnb lets. A number of concerns have been raised in my constituency about that issue. Some short-term lets are good, but others reduce the amount of affordable housing and lets in the area. There are also negative impacts from short-term lets, such as those from so-called party flats. As I said, I understand that Keith Brown is looking at short-term lets, but I wonder whether the bill will have an effect on that issue.

There has been lots of talk about the third-party right of appeal. I admit that in 2004, 2005 and 2006 I proposed a member’s bill on third-party right of appeal, but no party supported those bills. However, the issue is still on the go, which I welcome.

Andy Wightman

During a stage 1 debate in 2006 on a previous bill, Sandra White claimed that third-party right of appeal was SNP policy. Is it still SNP policy? If not, when was it dropped?

Sandra White

The member will need to ask ministers whether it is SNP policy. I thought that the issue had been discussed, but the bill certainly presents an ideal opportunity to discuss it again and bring it back on board. Whether Mr Wightman’s party, the Labour Party or the Conservatives support the idea of third-party right of appeal is for them to decide. I am just pointing out that it can be discussed.

Suggestions have been made about third-party right of appeal, but I do not know whether the one about having no right of appeal would be workable, and appeals criteria based on the size and type of development might be problematic. However, the suggestion of waiving appeal fees for local communities could be looked at. I am just throwing those ideas into the mix for stages 2 or 3. I do not want the issue of third-party right of appeal to be bypassed, because it is important that it is discussed. It has been discussed before and I look forward to further discussion of the issue.

It is not all doom and gloom in my constituency. I have met many of the developers in my area, and we have had the whisky distillery development and lots of other good developments in Glasgow Kelvin. The important point is that developers met the local community and local elected members. I urge all developers to ensure that local communities are involved in any planning process.

15:53

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

I, too, thank the Local Government and Communities Committee for its work in producing the stage 1 report, which I think will be very helpful. As Bob Doris said, it would be difficult to go through all the big issues in the report during this debate, but I know that the report will be very helpful in the coming weeks and months.

I believe that the consensus among the majority of members in the chamber is that the Planning (Scotland) Bill as introduced is deeply disappointing. That is certainly Labour’s view. I hope that Kevin Stewart, the minister, will be willing to take that on board and will work with other parties. If the parties can work together, we can radically transform what is a disappointing bill. I hope that we can get a consensus and work together on big changes.

When I ask myself what is wrong with the current planning system, I start with planning departments. The Royal Town Planning Institute has pointed out that

“between 2009 and 2016 local authorities on average lost 23% of planning staff, while over the same period planning service budgets were cut by an average of 32.5%. These figures illustrate the resource pressure that local authority planning services are experiencing”.

We cannot ignore the impact of those cuts on planning departments up and down Scotland.

Bob Doris

I am interested in the reference to financial pressures on planning departments. A fees review is taking place, which includes the idea of full cost recovery. Does Alex Rowley support the vast majority, if not all, of the moneys that are raised going directly to planning departments to fund the measures that he suggests?

Alex Rowley

We need to look at the balance and at the impact that such a proposal would have. Energy UK raised with me its concern that there could be a barrier to developing a lower-carbon and renewable energy infrastructure. Such issues need to be discussed with industry and business.

Another point about the bill that we need to get our heads round is how we will drive the Scottish economy. How will we drive investment in Scotland and put in place the necessary infrastructure to create the jobs of the future? Planning has many aspects, but one must be driving business, industry and the Scottish economy, and consultations on that need to take place.

I return to staff. In its evidence, Unison, which is the public sector union that represents the majority of planners, said:

“Planners tell us that they are overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of their workloads. They are also extremely stressed by the personal interaction that they often experience with clients ... Good planning doesn’t require yet another reform programme. Improvement will come through adequate funding and staffing levels and empowering staff ... It is resources they need not reorganisation.”

While we work on the bill, the Government must address the issues that are being raised; it cannot ignore them and blame the planning system for not delivering for our economy or for not delivering housing.

Housing is a key part of the planning system that we need to look at. We accept Shelter Scotland’s proposition that Scotland has a housing crisis. Some people would have us believe that, somehow, the planning system is at fault and all we need to do is fix it, but we know that that is not the case. I have raised with the minister time and again the problem of major developments going ahead when there is a lack of up-front infrastructure funding to allow that to happen, particularly in relation to education and other public services. I am not sure that he has addressed that in the bill.

The bill talks about local place plans, but I would like a local impact assessment on public services to take place wherever housing developments will be built. In my home village, there is a proposal for 900 houses. The local community welcomes it, but it has been stalled for a year and a half because there was no front loading for the schools infrastructure. The community, including the local medical practice, is now saying that, unless some kind of infrastructure funding is found, the practice will have to close its doors to everybody who comes to live in that village.

Therefore, if a community comes up with a local place plan that says that we need local infrastructure, local public services and local leisure services, that should have to be taken into account as a material consideration when a planning application is being considered.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No. Mr Rowley is just closing.

Alex Rowley

There are major issues and major opportunities. I hope that the minister will listen, because there is a majority in Parliament that does not believe that the bill is good enough. It needs vast improvement.

16:00

Ben Macpherson (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)

Like others, I very much welcome the bill and the debate on how we might strengthen and simplify our planning system.

Planning is about places, placemaking and, most important, people. It is about the places where we live, work and visit, so planning has a real impact on all our lives. Although it is a complex area of policy and law it is, of course, crucial, which is why the bill is so important. Although it is a framework bill—I absolutely respect that—it has rightly brought a focus to planning policy more widely and deeply.

There is so much that I could say on the subject, but I will contain my remarks to a number of focused points. Given that I represent the most densely populated area of Scotland, where planning is a very topical and emotive issue, I would like to focus on how we empower communities. The question for me is how we meaningfully and more substantially empower communities while we also, crucially, build the houses, offices and infrastructure that we need to meet our needs and to grow our economy sustainably in a sensible and sensitive way.

In my constituency, that issue is being discussed most prominently in Leith, in relation to a proposed demolition and development on Leith Walk. I pay tribute to the save Leith Walk campaign and the great work that it is doing to try to stop the demolition and ensure that the community’s voice is heard. I am right behind that campaign. Such campaigns are important because local people get involved because they care about their community. I pay tribute to such campaigners. It has been rightly said that it is not nimbyism when people raise issues about development.

I think of a previous campaign to stop an inner ring road being built through Edinburgh, which would have devastated parts of our capital city if people had not campaigned against it. That is illustrative of the fact that in such big campaigns, the campaigners are usually right. That is why we need to do what we can to ensure greater engagement to allow local people to have an effective voice in the system. I therefore warmly welcome the local place plans, which will give that up-front empowerment. I think of how much the save Leith Walk campaign, the save 1-6 Canonmills Bridge campaign, the save Heriot hill campaign and other campaigns that have been run in my constituency would have benefited from being part of something like that.

Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)

Could you address the point on what happens when communities are divided on an issue? There might not be a common view. There are people in Leith and in Canonmills who are supportive of what has been planned. How do we ensure that their voices are heard, or is it simply the case that the loudest voice is heard?

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

Always speak through the chair, please.

Ben Macpherson

That is where a local place plan could play an important role, because it could bring different community groups together to ensure that there is a cohesive position and that different views are heard on various matters.

I think about how that has already happened in my constituency. Here + Now CIC, a company that is based in Edinburgh, does that work, and the Leith creative project has undertaken a charrette in Leith, which was funded by the Scottish Government, to see how local communities can engage in such a process. I note that the Leith creative project talked in its submission to the committee at stage 1 about sufficient resourcing for local place plans, and I welcome the fact that the committee has also emphasised that point.

Another point has been raised with me about the expanded scope and breadth of potential notification processes, and I also welcome the point about fees to help with resources for enforcement.

The issue of appeals has been mentioned. It is a difficult point and one on which I have tried to remain open-minded—before and since my election. There is obviously a balance to be struck—the minister put the point well—to enable collaboration rather than conflict. I appreciate the potential risks to the economy and investment through the community third-party right of appeal, but most important is that Planning Aid Scotland and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations are against it, including on the issue of affordable housing demand. I find it compelling that Planning Aid Scotland, which supports community engagement and planning, is against the third-party right of appeal.

I note that on the other side of the argument—the developers’ right of appeal—the committee report stated:

“The Committee believes that in a plan-led system appeals should only be allowed in certain circumstances.”

It is important to ask what those circumstances would be. To stop applicants taking a hard line from the beginning and instead engaging in local place plans, perhaps it needs to be more prohibitive financially for developers to bring appeals. Perhaps there is also a need to look at the transparency around the process.

The infrastructure levy, which I welcome, has been discussed. That issue will be thrashed out in secondary legislation. The levy could make a difference not just to roads and education, but to healthcare and childcare provision, which are of significant importance to us all.

I could make a lot of other points, including around the potential of the creative and music industries as agents of change, around renewable technology, and around how we build in capacity for sustainable transport, whether that is secure bike locking or—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

How about around closing your remarks?

Ben Macpherson

—building standards.

It is important that we get this right. We must emphasise design and quality because, as has been said, our focus should be on

“securing the development of great places that will stand the test of time”.

16:07

Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)

For 11 years, I was a councillor here in Edinburgh. For five of those years, I sat on the planning committee. Unlike Richard Lyle I had, as far as I am aware, no nickname, but sitting on that committee and seeing how the city developed was an interesting experience.

The bill is vital for the whole of Scotland, but particularly for the Lothians, where we are seeing an expansion in house building in Edinburgh, in East Lothian, in Midlothian and in West Lothian. We need a planning bill that allows that development to continue—but in a way that is properly regulated.

I spent the bank holiday weekend looking at the bill, the committee’s report and the minister’s response to it. The headline issue that struck me—the clear message that comes through the bill—is that the SNP Government does not trust local government. If I were an SNP councillor, I would be saying to the Government that it clearly does not trust the decisions that SNP councillors are making.

Kevin Stewart

Will Jeremy Balfour give way?

Jeremy Balfour

No. I am sorry.

That is a damning indictment on this centralising Government. This bill has missed opportunities throughout. To some extent, I feel sorry for my colleagues who will have to take the bill through stage 2, because of the number of amendments that will have to be passed in order to make it work. It will certainly give them plenty of entertainment over the next few months.

In the short time remaining, I will give one example of where I consider there to be a power grab and one example of where there is a gaping hole in the bill.

I am a great fan of local development plans. They are, in principle, a good thing. They can be looked at and reviewed every five to 10 years. They can give the local area, the city or the region some understanding of where it is going over that time.

I am pleased that the Government has agreed that we need to engage with communities, although there are still difficulties around defining who the local community is and how the local community is heard. I spent 11 years attending community council meetings in my ward. The community councillors were often very good people who were looking to represent their areas, but I am not sure that they totally represented the whole public view of what was going on in my neighbourhood. We need devices to be open to us that will engage the whole community in an area.

We will have local development plans that will go through vast amounts of drafting by council officers, be debated by the planning committee and be approved by a full council—but then what? The minister will sign them off. Why does a minister need to sign off a local development plan? The key, surely, is in the first word, which is “local”, not “national”. That is not something that the Government should scrutinise or take over, which takes away from the whole concept of local democracy.

The second point that the committee will need to come back to—which I raised with the minister last Thursday in general questions—is with regard to disability housing and housing for people with different disabilities. As far as I can see—I am open to correction—nothing in the bill at this stage gives any assurance that appropriate housing and the right number of houses will be built for people with disabilities. The committee needs to have a think about that at stage 2, as does Parliament at stage 3. The perception is that we simply build housing and fit the disabled stuff in. Too often I hear from disability charities that it costs thousands of pounds to adapt a property that is not set up for wheelchairs, visual impairment or other disabilities.

This stage of the bill has been disappointing so far. Like everyone bar the Lib Dems, Conservative members will support the motion, because we hope that the bill can be changed with amendments at stage 2 and stage 3. There is a long way to go, and the Government must listen to local communities and even to its SNP councillors.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Richard Lyle, to be followed by Tom Mason.

16:12

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

How long do I have, Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You have six minutes, Mr Lyle.

Richard Lyle

Thank you very much. That has gone up.

I have had close experience of planning, having been a long-time councillor, first on Motherwell District Council and subsequently on North Lanarkshire Council. I have seen the best and the not so great with regard to our planning process in Scotland.

The bill before Parliament is the result of the SNP Government’s commitment to improve the system of development planning and, more important, to give people a greater say in the future of their places and to support the delivery of planned development. As the minister outlined, that commitment is in several parts of the bill, and I will highlight a number of elements.

Part 1 focuses on strengthening and reaffirming the role of the development plan, which is the plan-led system that removes the requirement to produce strategic development plans and focuses instead on the production of a local development plan that supports the delivery of development. Importantly, part 1 also delivers a new right for communities to produce their own local place plans, reaffirming our commitment to better involve local people and local communities in the planning process across Scotland.

It is not true that this is a centralising Government. Part 3 of the bill makes a number of changes to development management processes, amending existing provisions for considering and deciding planning applications to support and improve efficiency, with appropriate local consultation and—importantly—more local decision making.

Andy Wightman

Will the member give way?

Richard Lyle

No; I am sorry but I do not have time.

The final elements of the bill that I wish to reflect on are in parts 4 and 5. They recognise the changes that are required to support effective performance across a plethora of planning functions, including the strengthening of planning authorities’ ability to use their powers to ensure appropriate enforcement of unauthorised development. The changes include a requirement for planning authority members to undertake training in planning, which is something that I never got as a councillor and which I am sure will be a great benefit to colleagues throughout local government.

In my experience, councillors are placed on the planning committee based on the need to represent their ward areas on the planning authority. Councillors should appropriately consider applications that are relevant not only to their own area but, importantly, to the whole local authority. Councillors are there to serve the whole local authority community. That should include consideration of the economic impact of developments through consistent investment in our communities.

People often say that I wish to build for building’s sake but that is not true. I also wish to preserve, but we must recognise that, as elected members—be it at local authority planning level or in the Parliament—we will all want developments in our areas that contribute to the local economy, local job creation and, ultimately, better outcomes for all those we represent.

Monica Lennon

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Lyle

No; I am sorry—I do not have time.

Finally, part 5 of the bill delivers on an idea that I think is very worth while and has the potential to deliver a significant return for communities, as it allows for the provision of an infrastructure levy that is payable to councils, linked to development. The levy can be used to fund or contribute to infrastructure projects that can incentivise the delivery of developments. In my opinion, it should be used locally to benefit the community.

As we consider the bill, all of us across the chamber should consider why it is important and much needed. The answer is clear. The bill is central to the package of measures from the SNP Government that is intended to strengthen the planning system and contribute to inclusive growth and the empowering communities agenda.

We are constantly being told by the Opposition that we need to grow the economy. We are doing that, from house building to plans that deliver job creation. We need to balance those ambitions with consideration of our important local environments. We should be saying that although we need to continually protect and celebrate our local environments, we also need to build in order to house people and provide jobs. The bill is rightly seen as another key milestone in our journey to improve the planning system—and it should be recognised as a journey.

It is abundantly clear that the bill will strengthen local communities. Planning is a tool to improve the economic situation of a local area, and it should be used to drive the economy. Developers should be encouraged, not discouraged. It is abundantly clear that the bill will strengthen the role of local people in the planning process; I would encourage councils and councillors to discuss planning more with people, and I would encourage councils, as planning authorities, to have a more proactive discussion with potential developers to ensure that proposals are relevant to the local area. Developers should be given a chance to amend and revise their plans and take cognisance of the advice that they are being given by local people and planners in order to make sure that their proposals fit the needs of local people, the local area and our nation.

I hope that the bill delivers more positive outcomes for Scotland and all her communities and a better system for the future, to drive the Scottish economy and deliver for all.

16:18

Tom Mason (North East Scotland) (Con)

I remind members that I am a councillor on Aberdeen City Council. I state, for the minister’s interest, that I have undergone planning training, which was entertaining but not very comprehensive.

Planning in our local communities is one of the most contentious issues that our constituents have to deal with. For most, it is too complex; for many, it is grossly unfair. Most people, certainly in the city of Aberdeen, cannot understand why certain buildings are put in certain places.

When confronted with a planning dispute, constituents are often left fighting for their communities in a battle with well-resourced developers. Such circumstances often result in many objections to a project.

Kevin Stewart

Presiding Officer, I am finding it very difficult to hear Mr Mason. I wonder whether something could be done about his microphone.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sure that broadcasting staff will have taken note of the issue. Mr Mason, could you make sure that the microphone is pointing straight at you? Thank you very much.

Tom Mason

I will do my best.

When the bill was introduced, we heard Government representatives describe objections as a delay to be avoided. However, many people lose amenity and experience disruptions but receive no compensation from the developer. They have no option but to object.

That is a particularly pertinent point when there are projects that do not follow local development plans. People may have purchased property on the understanding that the local plan would be followed. It seems unreasonable that a plan that has been negotiated and consulted on can easily be overturned by the council without there having to be any justification to an alternative authority. We saw an example of that with the new football stadium in Aberdeen—a decision that attracted its fair share of controversy. It is right to take time to engage with stakeholders. As others have stated, at stage 2 we hope to work out the best approach for the appeal process as a result of the evidence that has been given.

Availability of information on planning applications has vastly improved thanks to the internet, but notification to those affected is made only to immediate neighbours. That assumes that the effect of development is limited to those sharing a boundary with the property. Although people in the city usually cannot see past their own street, in rural areas visibility is greater and a project can completely change someone’s surrounding landscape without any notification being required.

When infrastructure construction cuts through properties, compulsory purchase orders are initiated and the occupant receives statutory compensation as a minimum—and often receives more. Adjoining properties that miss the construction by even as little as 10cm receive no such compensation, although their loss of amenity can be equal to, if not worse than, that of those who are losing their land, and may include visual, noise and air pollution.

The current system aside, there are some issues in the bill that need fixing. One is the introduction of local place plans. That element of the bill allows communities to come up with their own plans, which planning authorities must consider as part of the process. In principle, I welcome the idea of communities having a conditional list for future planning in the area. However, the bill does not place any obligation on authorities to follow those plans—only that they should “have regard” to them. That, unfortunately, creates a situation in which people spend long hours and significant sums of money preparing plans for their own communities, but when push comes to shove they are ignored.

Another area of contention is the infrastructure levy. The bill would give Scottish ministers the power to impose a levy on developers totalling an estimated £750 million over 10 years. That works out at a maximum of £75 million per year, which is insufficient to deliver the estimated £7.5 billion that is needed for housing. I wondered why such a small fraction was incentive enough for the Government to introduce the levy, until I saw the fine print. The Scottish Government can, if it wants, require local authorities to hand over their levy money to be redistributed among local authorities as the Government pleases. It is all starting to make sense: another day, another attempt to centralise power in St Andrew’s house.

I expected more from the bill. We were promised a major shake-up of how planning is conducted, but the many emails that we have all received from constituents and stakeholders show us that the change is far from major. It is clear that there are issues with the bill as it stands, and those will require a significant amount of work as it progresses through Parliament. Those problems can be overcome and a suitable bill can be agreed—one that not only provides us with a planning system that is both efficient and fit for purpose but puts local opinion at the forefront of decision making. I will be supporting the bill at this stage and look forward to considering future improvements to it in due course, although I say to the minister that it would be much better to tear this one up and start again.

16:23

Iain Gray (East Lothian) (Lab)

I am often asked—for example, by visiting school groups—what is the biggest issue that arises in my constituency. Although I often talk about the health service and education, the truth is that planning is the biggest issue. I will talk a little about East Lothian, because it epitomises the issues at the heart of this afternoon’s debate and the reasons why the bill must be improved.

East Lothian suffers significantly from a lot of the pressures to which colleagues have referred. We have the fastest growing population in Scotland—it has gone up by 20 per cent in the past 20 years and is projected to rise by 30 per cent in the next 20 to 25 years. Therefore, the national plan imposes on East Lothian a requirement to find sites for more than 10,000 houses.

We also have a significant issue with trying to provide enough employment and jobs for that growing population so that we can avoid becoming simply a commuter county for the city of Edinburgh, which is next door to us. We have key industries such as agriculture and tourism that require protection from and promotion by the planning system.

East Lothian is made up of six towns and associated villages, each of which has its own character, viability and sustainability, which the planning system must find a way of maintaining. In those communities, we must avoid incremental growth through adding more houses, a few at a time, and diluting the community’s character, placing a boiling-the-frog kind of pressure on infrastructure such as schools and health services.

This morning, our council agreed its local development plan, which identifies sites for more than 10,000 houses but also goes to great lengths to avoid the destruction of our existing communities. It focuses on large housing sites including, in one case, a new settlement at Blindwells. That allows for plans to improve infrastructure through the provision of, for example, a number of new schools.

Our problem is that our previous local development plan has been systematically ignored for years by developers, with the support of Scottish ministers and their reporters. Every town and village in East Lothian has suffered from inappropriate housing developments, some of which have included hundreds of houses, some of which have increased a village in size by as much as 30 per cent and some of which have joined one village to the next in a way that we have tried to avoid for many years. All of that has happened because of developers appealing planning decisions that have been refused. In most years, we have seen 80 per cent or more of those appeals being upheld. Indeed, in one year, 100 per cent of developer appeals against local planning decisions were upheld.

In many cases, those developers are playing the system. Some of them had planning permission for housing in agreed local development sites that they simply refused to develop while they pursued other sites, successfully arguing to the reporters that, because they were not progressing housing elsewhere, they had to do it in a particular place to meet population needs.

The problem is not just with housing. Close to Dunbar and nearing completion is an energy-from-waste incinerator project. I was unable to find a single constituent in the local communities who supported that project, and it was rejected by the local authority, but that decision was simply overturned on appeal. Immediately afterwards, the planning conditions were varied so that we will now see waste being brought to that part of my constituency from all over Scotland and the north of England, exactly as we feared.

That is before we get to the site of the former Cockenzie power station. The local authority did not even have a chance to make a decision before the minister chose to call the application in on the basis of a national planning framework that is outdated for that site because it identifies bringing electricity ashore, which nobody disputes, and a new thermal power station, which nobody has any intention of building.

If there is conflict or mistrust in the system, this is its genesis. My constituents want decisions to be taken locally whenever that is possible. I do not think that most of them want an unqualified third-party right of appeal, because that would mean even more decisions being taken elsewhere. However, they do not see why they should have no right of appeal when developers have an unrestricted right of appeal. We should balance that up with a qualified right of appeal on both sides. People will not invest time or resources in local place plans, because they simply do not believe that they will be respected. Their experience of the system is that ministers do not respect local decisions, and, until the bill changes to demonstrate that it does that, it is not good enough.

16:29

George Adam (Paisley) (SNP)

I thank the usual suspects—the clerks and the committee members—for all their work. Although I am not a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I take a keen interest in the planning system because, as a former councillor, I know how important it is. New councillors initially tend to avoid planning—unless, like the minister, they are total planning geeks—but then they start to see how important it can be to the economic development and wellbeing of the area that they represent. Monica Lennon is right in saying that the subject can appear dry and difficult but, eventually, people see how important it is and how it can make a difference. All of us got involved in politics to change our communities, and the planning system is key to that.

The big-money question is what we do about planning, because currently the planning system can be a nightmare for absolutely everybody who is involved in it, whether that is the developers, the planners or the individuals at the other end of the process. We always seem to have difficulties in trying to marry it all up, but I think that the bill moves in the right direction and will make a difference. However, we have to be mindful that, no matter how well we draft a planning bill and how expertly we think we can do it, it will never be perfect for absolutely everyone, although we have to get as close as possible to that.

In answering the question about how we do this, Jenny Gilruth talked about engaging young people and the language that we use. She also said that it is not just about engaging people early on; it is also about engaging across the community, which I found interesting. Engagement with poorer communities has been mentioned, and it can be difficult. In my constituency, the community council in Ferguslie Park—it is the first one there for about 18 years—is very proactive and has quite a dynamic group of individuals who are looking at planning. The needs of Ferguslie Park are entirely different from the needs of other parts of the town, which shows that we need flexibility, whether in local communities or in the whole nation of Scotland.

I come to the debate with the benefit of the experience that I gained in my time as a councillor. Colleagues may listen and decide that they do not agree with my thoughts, but I will say what I believe in. The main reason why I am taking part in the debate is similar to the main reason why I take part in just about every debate—it is that the planning system is an integral part of the regeneration of Paisley. I know that it is unusual for me to be so parochial, but that is what my constituents want and it is what I want. We need a planning system that will help and not hinder development and regeneration in our town and that has flexibility to ensure that redevelopment happens.

As I said, we have heard from other members’ speeches that the situation is different in other areas. Mr Lyle will have different problems with development in his area from the problems that I have in mine. In my area, we have to work harder to ensure that people want to come. To get the housing that we need, we need flexibility for planners at the local level; without that, we will not deliver. Paisley needs to expand. The population needs to be larger, and it needs to continue to be Scotland’s largest town—he says to the representative of East Kilbride, who is in the chair. We must build on that, but that will be difficult if there is a third-party right of appeal. I see why some people like the idea, but the reason why people are looking at that is probably because the current system is not working.

Andy Wightman

In 2006, a third-party right of appeal was SNP policy. Is it still SNP policy? If not, when was it dropped?

George Adam

There have been two independent planning reviews since then—things move on.

In Paisley, we must ensure that we get the opportunity to make developments go forward, and flexibility is one of the most important things for that.

When the bill was introduced, the Minister for Local Government and Housing, Kevin Stewart, said:

“Scotland’s economy needs a world-class planning system. Our planning system must take a strong and confident lead in securing the development of great places”.

He is right about that. I want the bill to help my great place—my home town—and make it even better, and I believe that it will do that. Is it perfect? We will never get a perfect planning system, but it is a very welcome step in the right direction.

One of the main purposes of the bill, for me, is that it will create a planning system that engages with communities at the earliest point. As a former councillor in Renfrewshire, I am only too aware of what happens when people in the community hear about a development or a decision at the very end of the process. It becomes more and more difficult as the process continues, because by that time people have already got to a stage at which they have not been able to engage. The Scottish Government’s idea of getting people involved at an early stage is extremely helpful.

The bill is about making a planning system that can deliver for my constituency—I make no apology for that—and there needs to be flexibility in the bill so that it can work in other communities. We have heard today how things can be different in the many different parts of our country. I support the Scottish Government’s work so far, and I look forward to the bill progressing through Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the closing speeches. It is disappointing that not all of those who have taken part in the debate are in the chamber. I call Monica Lennon.

16:36

Monica Lennon

In my opening speech, I set out the positive case for why planning matters and why I believe that the bill fails to hit the mark. We have had a largely constructive debate this afternoon, but it is clear that, for the majority of us, the bill is, at best, underwhelming. I believe that that is because the drivers behind the bill are wrong. Planning did not create Scotland’s housing crisis, and tinkering around the edges of the planning process will not solve that crisis.

Alex Rowley hit the nail on the head when he talked about the need to front load finance for infrastructure, and Andy Wightman’s consultation on enabling local authorities to acquire land for public-interest development at existing land-use value is attractive, because housing delivery is a major concern for us all.

In 2014 and 2015, a number of major reports on housing in Scotland were published. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors published its report, “Building a Better Scotland”, in 2014, and the commission for housing and wellbeing that was set up by Shelter Scotland reported in 2015. RICS set out a number of recommendations, although not all were about the planning system. It included the recommendation that

“the Scottish Government, in partnership with planning authorities, undertakes a review to assess the nature of existing planning consents in Scotland.”

In a debate in January 2017, I asked the minister about that review. I did not get an answer then, but Iain Gray illustrated the issue by highlighting the situation in East Lothian, where housing is being built by appeal. That is no way to plan for our communities. We cannot have developers land banking sites, abandoning them and then going to pressured areas where the community infrastructure simply does not exist—a point that was also made by Alex Cole-Hamilton.

Scotland’s planning system is already very permissive. More than 95 per cent of planning applications are approved, but how many of those consents remain houses on paper that do not get built, and what is responsible for that? To return to the question that I asked the minister, is it lack of access to development finance, is it infrastructure costs, is it low market confidence, or is it all of the above? The bill does not set out solutions to any of those problems, and we have to have an honest discussion about that before we look at the detail of the bill.

The national planning framework has got people quite exercised in the chamber. The committee agreed that incorporating the Scottish planning policy into the national planning framework was, on paper, a fairly sensible thing to do. However, it is clear that a lot of people in the chamber want greater parliamentary scrutiny, so any further changes would need to be mapped out, and funding arrangements for NPF priorities also need to be clearer.

Scotland has a successful history of strategic planning. Clydeplan, for example, is an award-winning strategic development plan authority. However, the bill seeks to abolish SDPs without showing any evidence as to why they are not working. There is really not a lot of evidence on that. To say, on the one hand, that we need to abolish SDPs, and, on the other, that we should allow them to continue on a voluntary basis does not make much sense, even to an old veteran planner such as me.

On the surface, local place plans sound like a very nice thing, but people are rightly asking how they would work in practice. People do not want communities to take the time and effort to get involved, only to be disappointed further down the line.

Ben Macpherson mentioned charrettes. A charrette costs about £40,000, and the budget for local place plans in the financial memorandum is about £13,000. We have to think about what we are resourcing and whether we are providing enough. Is there a greater argument for properly resourcing mainstream local development plans, so that everyone, not just people with the time and ability, can be involved in them? Resources have come up several times in the debate.

On equal right of appeal, proposals to equalise appeals are only one, vital part of the package of measures that is needed to strengthen the planning process. The imbalance of power between communities and developers with deep pockets is unfair and needs to be addressed. I pay tribute to Sandra White, who was an early adopter of and advocate for a community right of appeal. I am not sure that anything that has happened in subsequent independent planning reviews should encourage anyone to move away from that position. The arguments that were made in 2005 in the debates about the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill are being repeated today, because people do not feel properly empowered. At the time, front loading was promised as a kind of substitute for equal right of appeal; now it feels like local place plans are the fudge. We need to look at the issue more closely, which is why we will lodge amendments in that regard.

On simplified development zones, we want planning to be simple everywhere and we want budgets that can deliver infrastructure everywhere. The minister said in his speech that SDZs will be renamed—I think that he said that they will be called “masterplan consent zones”, whatever that is supposed to mean. I do not think that there is a strong case for simplified development zones. The approach seems to have been bolted on, in an attempt by the Government to appear innovative, and I do not see how it would strengthen the development plan process.

Mike Rumbles

Will the member take an intervention?

Monica Lennon

Yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member does not have time, Mr Rumbles. You have only five more seconds, Ms Lennon.

Monica Lennon

Okay. I apologise.

We will lodge amendments. Claudia Beamish, who is sitting behind me, will lodge amendments with the aim of improving responsiveness to flood risk and tackling the culture of repeat applications by people who do not get their own way, which the minister does not appear to be addressing. Lewis Macdonald will lodge amendments on the agent of change principle, about which he is passionate, and Mary Fee will lodge amendments in relation to Gypsy Travellers.

There is a lot that we can do to transform planning. I welcome the opportunity to work with the Government and other parties to ensure that the bill is as good as it can be.

16:42

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)

A number of themes have emerged during this interesting debate on what I think is one of the most important bills that the Parliament will consider in this session.

There has been some discussion about the purpose of planning. It seems to me that the purpose of planning is remarkably clear. I am not sure what mischief has been caused by the absence of a statutory purpose in our planning laws since 1347 and why we need one to be stated in law rather than just in policy.

As George Adam said in his speech—much of which I agreed with, it will shock him to hear—the purpose of planning is to facilitate and enable growth in Scotland’s economy. To grow the economy, we need development, and to engineer development should be the focus of the planning system. Of course development needs to be environmentally sustainable, and of course growth needs to be socially inclusive, but first and foremost there needs to be growth, and the job of the planning system is to help to make that happen—to facilitate it and not to get in its way.

Andy Wightman

Will the member give way?

Adam Tomkins

I want to make a little progress, but when I have done so I will let Mr Wightman in.

That purpose requires us to make choices. It might be that Mr Wightman and I will disagree on some of those choices, although probably not all of them. There is a choice to be made about the relationship between local decision making and centralised control. That theme emerged in a number of speeches and was most passionately expressed by Alex Cole-Hamilton.

There is a choice to be made about the relationship between community engagement and national plans. There is a choice to be made about how we navigate between the rights and interests of developers, on one hand, and the rights and interests of residents, on the other, including when it comes to appeal. Although we would want to support strongly some of the choices that have been made in the bill, we are sceptical of others—and others again we think will need to be reconsidered as the bill makes progress through Parliament.

Let me start with the points on which we agree. As Monica Lennon mentioned a few minutes ago, part 2 provides for a new regime of simplified development zones to replace the current simplified planning zones, the take-up of which I think the minister would acknowledge has been very disappointing, there having been only two across the whole of Scotland. They have manifestly failed to meet or to fulfil the potential that they once offered. In what, if I may say so, is a very thorough and high-quality report, the Local Government and Communities Committee has welcomed the bill’s provisions on simplified development zones. However, in my view, it was right to argue that they need to go further if they are to meet the potential that is promised for them. Such zones have the potential to make a significant and positive difference, but, as the bill currently stands, I have to say to the minister that that potential is unlikely to be realised.

The problem is not what we call such areas. “Simplified development zones” is a term that could certainly be improved upon, but I share the view—which I think is echoed right across the chamber—that “masterplan consent areas” might not be the improvement that we all seek. We need not a rebranding of what we call the thing—least of all an Orwellian rebranding of jargonistic gobbledygook—but a bottom-up rethink of how we ensure that local authorities take full advantage of the new scheme for which we seek to legislate and streamline planning so that this is not just another missed or lost opportunity. It is striking how many times this afternoon members from right across the chamber have described the bill as a missed opportunity.

I turn to areas in which we are more sceptical of the choices that the minister has sought to make in the bill as introduced. In the independent review of the Scottish planning system that reported in 2016, there were a number of recommendations that were, to my mind, rather bold and innovative and sought to place infrastructure investment at the very heart of that review. Indeed, the review talked about an “infrastructure-first approach”. To my mind, one of the most significant failings of this bill—and the one in which there is most room for improvement—is its weak and diluted provisions on infrastructure. The independent review’s core recommendation on infrastructure was that a new national infrastructure agency needed to be created—a policy that has long since been dropped by the SNP. Scottish Conservatives think that that is a mistake. Scotland needs such an agency. By the way, that is not an argument for centralisation. Just because we have a national agency does not mean that it has to be controlled centrally by the minister of the day. We can have an agency the remit of which is national but which is composed of representatives of regional bodies such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Andy Wightman

Will the member give way?

Adam Tomkins

In one minute.

In the bill, there is no mechanism for capturing any land value uplift. It is silent on that, which is a missed opportunity. If I may say so, the bill is spectacularly weak in its provisions on an infrastructure levy. It is a relatively modest proposal, and the Scottish Government has recently said that no decisions have yet been made on the use of the power in the bill to enable ministers, at some point in the future, to bring forward an infrastructure levy. There are three problems with that. The policy is underdeveloped; the minister proposes to proceed by regulation rather than by primary legislation, thereby cutting Parliament out of the equation, and—worst of all, as Alexander Stewart said—ministers propose to collect and distribute funds from the infrastructure levy, which is the very definition of centralising.

Mr Wightman has tried to come in twice, so I will let him in now if he still wants to do so.

Andy Wightman

I am glad that Mr Tomkins raised the question of land value uplift, because the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2017 election said that communities and public authorities should benefit from the increase in value. In September 2017, his own leader, Ruth Davidson, said that the Conservatives should examine the power to give local authorities the right to buy land at current use value. Can I therefore take it that Mr Tomkins is sympathetic to the proposals that I have put out for consultation?

Adam Tomkins

I am very sympathetic indeed to the idea that Scotland needs to get ahead of the curve; we are currently behind it on land value capture. I understand that, in the past couple of days, the Scottish Land Commission has published a very short, four-page paper on land value capture. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the very valuable work that is done by the Scottish Land Commission, but that is not what we need. We do not need a four-page summary from an agency that explains what land value capture is; we need detailed, worked-through proposals in a planning bill. The minister has had two years to get that ready, but we have not got there yet. We are behind the curve, whereas we need to get in front of it. The idea that we should crawl towards 2023 and eventually have some kind of policy on land value capture will not deliver the economic growth that George Adam has just talked about for his constituency or that any of us would want to talk about for our own constituencies or regions.

My final point is about the mistake that the bill is making in seeking to remove strategic development plans. I had thought that we were now all agreed on the importance of city regions in driving economic growth. I had thought that it was now accepted, across the political spectrum across the United Kingdom, by left and right alike—

Mike Rumbles

And the centre.

Adam Tomkins

Thank you, Mr Rumbles. It is also accepted by the noisy, sedentary, radical centre—

Mike Rumbles

Hear, hear!

Adam Tomkins

—that it is cities and their regions that drive economic growth. The one respect in which that truth is recognised in the existing Scottish planning system is in the importance of strategic development plans, not least in the city that I represent, where the Clyde plan is now around 70 years old. It is cities, working in close collaboration with their regions, that drive economic growth, and we need a planning system that recognises and encourages that rather than one that dilutes it.

I note the remark that the minister made a couple of hours ago that he will look to amend the bill at stage 2 to impose some sort of legal duty on local authorities to participate in the development of the strategic elements of the national planning framework, and I look forward to finding out what that legal duty might look like. However, it seems to me that local authorities need incentives to co-operate on strategic planning, not top-down imposition of coercive duties, and the minister might want to reflect on that between now and stage 2.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Kevin Stewart to wind up the debate.

16:51

Kevin Stewart

I have listened to the debate with great interest. It has been a fairly good debate, even though there have been disagreements, and one that reflects the importance of planning to all our lives. It has also been very much in keeping with the range of views that people have about how we should change our planning system. I will be honest with members. I know from having spoken to folk across the country over the past two years that those views are very diverse and can often be extremely polarised. I pay tribute to my officials for pulling together those highly diverse and often polarised views and allowing them to shape the bill that is before us.

I have listened to the debate, and I would like to offer my thoughts on some of the issues that have been raised. Bob Doris, Monica Lennon, Andy Wightman and Adam Tomkins were among the many folk to mention the idea of including in the bill a purpose for planning. We will give that careful consideration, as I said previously. It would not help the system if we were to set out a lengthy checklist of current policy priorities in statute and, in so doing, restrict the flexibility of the planning system to react to changing circumstances, because that could lead to an increase in the number of legal challenges to decisions in the courts, which would take us all in entirely the wrong direction. However, I recognise Parliament’s desire for the bill to have a clear overarching purpose, and I will explore how we can bring forward appropriate wording.

The national planning framework, which has also been mentioned a number of times, has a crucial role to play in an improved planning system. Parliament can play an active role in shaping it, but we must recognise that Governments have a right to make policy. A 60-day period for parliamentary scrutiny of the NPF is already enshrined in the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and our bill seeks to increase that to 90 days. I am confident that that timescale is adequate. We expect planning authorities to stick to timescales and, as a Parliament, we should be prepared to do the same to avoid generating delay and uncertainty in the system.

Several members raised issues in relation to the NPF. I reassure Bob Doris that Parliament will continue to see the draft that is consulted on before the proposed NPF is submitted to Parliament.

Iain Gray mentioned East Lothian and the NPF deciding how much housing should be there. I am afraid that he was wrong, because it is the strategic development plan, not the national planning framework, that decides the housing for East Lothian.

On strategic development plans, I do not want to create a system that has too many plans and not enough focus on delivery. One of the biggest complaints that I receive from constituents is that they deal with a local development plan and then they suddenly deal with a strategic development plan, and they do not know what is going on. I want the systems to be simple and easy for people to get involved in, and I am afraid that that is not happening now. We need to declutter the landscape of development plans.

I understand what has been said about continued co-operation. Sometimes, the strategic development plan area does not cover a city region deal area. It should be up to local authorities to decide who they wish to co-operate with.

Adam Tomkins

That is an important point. The Local Government and Communities Committee unanimously concluded that it had not heard evidence that the removal of the strategic development plans

“will lead to a simplification, to streamlining, to cost savings”.

What is the Government’s response to that finding?

Kevin Stewart

I have related some of that myself, in my day-to-day business with constituents; the fact is that they find it very confusing indeed.

What we will propose at stage 2 will allow further flexibilities for local authorities to co-operate, including in the likes of Ayrshire, which is not covered by a strategic development plan, although I hope that it will have a form of regional deal in the near future that will allow those three local authorities to work together.

I reassure members that the intention has always been that local place plans be taken very seriously, and I will lodge further amendments to ensure that those expectations are made clear in the bill.

I have to disagree with Mr Simpson, who said that councils should be at the forefront of all this. Local place plans are a measure to support community empowerment and allow communities to put forward their own ideas. Mr Simpson wants to take that out of the hands of communities and put it back to councils. In my book, that is not empowering. We will look very carefully at what folk have said about local place plans and—

Graham Simpson

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

I have very little time. I am sorry.

Masterplanned consent areas—let us use that phrase—will strengthen the planning system, not weaken it. I agree with Mr Tomkins that simplified planning zones have not done as well as we would have expected—although, that said, out of the two that we have, Hillington Park has attracted £25 million of private investment, which is not be sniffed at in anyone’s book. There is an opportunity to empower the planning system, drive forward well-planned placemaking and attract investment to areas that need it most.

I turn to rights of appeal. I remain of the view that fundamentally altering long-established rights of appeal would put the effectiveness of the system as a whole in jeopardy. Adding extra risk, process and uncertainty can only act as a disincentive to those who would invest in our communities and would undermine the aspiration to build engagement at the start of the process. I have listened to what folk have said about what we can do to ensure that the start of the process works for people and allows that level of engagement. A key change in our proposals is the early gate check of development plans, which is intended to ensure that early engagement takes place and that engagement with communities is continuous and meaningful. We will lodge amendments to make all that clearer.

The infrastructure levy has been discussed. I made it quite clear at the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Local Government and Communities Committee that the infrastructure levy, if that power is invoked, will not be a wee bit of extra cash for Mr Mackay; rather, it will go directly to local authorities. I realise that some folk are worried about some aspects of how the bill is written. The aim of the provision in the bill was to allow levy funds to be pooled and put towards common regional infrastructure objectives. It is not our intention to collect and redistribute levy funds from one area to another. Having considered the committee’s recommendation further, we will address the concern by lodging an amendment to remove paragraph 14 of schedule 1, which relates to that aspect of the levy.

As usual, there has been some robust debate on planning—I would expect nothing less. There has been some controversy on the performance and training of councillors, which was one of the key elements that communities and individuals wanted to see among the bill’s provisions. I realise that some folk are unhappy about that, but we would be failing the communities that we represent if we did not include performance and training in the bill. I am sure that we will continue to have these debates during the course of stage 2.

29 May 2018

Financial resolution

A financial resolution is needed for Bills that may have a large impact on the 'public purse'.

MSPs must agree to this for the Bill to proceed.

Financial resolution transcript

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S5M-12393 on a financial resolution for the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Planning (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Kevin Stewart]

29 May 2018

MSPs recommended this proposed law could continue

Changes to the Bill

MSPs can propose changes to a Bill – these are called 'amendments'. The changes are considered then voted on by the lead committee.

The lists of proposed changes are known as a 'marshalled list'. There's a separate list for each week that the committee is looking at proposed changes.

The 'groupings' document groups amendments together based on their subject matter. It shows the order in which the amendments will be debated by the committee and in the Chamber. This is to avoid repetition in the debates.

How is it decided whether the changes go into the Bill?

When MSPs want to make a change to a Bill, they propose an 'amendment'. This sets out the changes they want to make to a specific part of the Bill.

The group of MSPs that is examining the Bill (lead committee) votes on whether it thinks each amendment should be accepted or not.

Depending on the number of amendments, this can be done during one or more meetings.

First meeting on amendments

Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 12 September 2018:

First Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2

First Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2

First meeting on amendments transcript

The Convener

Agenda item 6 is consideration of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. This is day 1 of our consideration of the bill at stage 2.

I again welcome the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, and his accompanying officials. A number of members of the Scottish Parliament who are not committee members but who have lodged amendments to the bill will also be in attendance today and are very welcome.

Before section 1

The Convener

Amendment 115, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 115A, 5 and 103.

Kevin Stewart

I am glad that there is a degree of consensus on the purpose of planning. Having considered the evidence that was given at stage 1, I agree that having a clear purpose could strengthen the reputation of planning and help it to be properly valued for the contribution that it makes to delivering better long-term outcomes for our communities, economy and environment.

We are all agreed that the overarching purpose is to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest. Amendment 115, in my name, would insert that into the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and apply it to functions relating to the national planning framework and local development plans, which are covered by parts 1A and 2 of the 1997 act respectively. That is in contrast to the amendments lodged by Monica Lennon and Graham Simpson, each of which stands alone in the bill and applies to the whole planning system.

I believe that it is better to focus on development plans, as they are the basis for decision making. If the purpose were to apply to all functions of planning, it could undermine the primacy of the development plan, and generate new grounds to challenge any planning decision. I remind the committee of the comments that Norman Macleod of the Scottish Government’s legal directorate made during my stage 1 evidence session on that matter. It would not be helpful to introduce a purpose that adds further bureaucracy to the system. For example, do we really want to see every decision—even for an advertising sign or a house extension—being accompanied by a possibly lengthy explanation of why it is in the long-term public interest? I suggest that that would be disproportionate.

As regards defining what is in the long-term public interest, amendment 115 mentions, in particular, contributing to sustainable development and achieving the national outcomes. I recognise that, in giving evidence to the committee, stakeholders have emphasised the importance of sustainable development. There is already a duty for development plans to contribute to sustainable development, and the amendment has built that in to the purpose. Linked to that, new section 1A(3) will repeal sections 3D and 3E of the 1997 act, as they are superseded by their inclusion in proposed new section 3ZA.

09:45

The purpose has also been specifically linked with the national outcomes under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The national outcomes express all that the public sector aims to achieve, in all areas of our lives, and they include the United Nations sustainable development goals and the fulfilment of human rights. Under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, all Scottish public bodies are required to have regard to the national outcomes in carrying out their functions. Therefore, including that in the purpose of planning will help to ensure that it is comprehensive and consistent with wider frameworks.

Amendment 115A, from Andy Wightman, would add specific sustainable development commitments to the proposed new section 3ZA, creating two different objectives for planning authorities and ministers in relation to development planning. Amendment 115 has sought to avoid that by the incorporation of the existing sustainable development duty from sections 3D and 3F.

Sustainable development goes to the heart of the planning system and I have no doubt that it will continue to be a key driver for the development of the national planning framework. However, I would prefer to keep the purpose clear and succinct, rather than include a long list of documents and commitments that could change over time. The UN sustainable development goals and the Quito declaration form part of our understanding of what sustainable development is, and as I have said, the UN sustainable development goals are embedded in the national outcomes. It is not helpful to add such specific references to the primary legislation and to expect planning authorities to address multiple goals that all seek to achieve the same thing.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 103 would highlight health, environment, and equality and human rights as aspects of the long-term public interest. As I have said, the national outcomes that are mentioned in my amendment 115 reflect the 17 United Nations sustainable development goals and refer to the fulfilment of human rights, so they cover all those aspects in a more global way.

I move amendment 115.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

We agreed in the stage 1 report that we need a purpose of planning. I am pleased that we have reached a broad consensus on that principle. However, at stage 1, having had dialogue with those who gave evidence, I was clear that a purpose of planning should be a stand-alone purpose of the planning system to give some direction and coherence to a system that has now been in place for 70 years.

Amendment 115 does not do that. The purpose in amendment 115 is not a purpose of the planning system; instead, it relates to the purpose to be achieved by ministers and planning authorities in exercising their functions. That is a subtly different concept, but the difference is important.

The minister made the point that the rationale for that is to restrict the application of the purpose to the development planning process, rather than apply it to the system as a whole. I hear what he says about evidence that was given by one of his officials from the legal directorate. However, I would say that many other countries have a purpose of planning that is freestanding in statute. Witnesses drew our attention to those in written evidence at stage 1.

I am keen to see a purpose of planning as a stand-alone purpose at the head of the bill. Therefore, I will support amendment 5, in Graham Simpson’s name. There is scope for expanding that, although I am open to further discussions on that. For the sake of argument, I will also support amendment 103 in Monica Lennon’s name.

As far as amendment 115, in the minister’s name, is concerned, I have a problem in that I believe that the purpose should stand alone above it. However, it is a useful new section, which could be reframed as “Exercise of functions”, rather than “Purpose of planning”.

I am content for section 3D of the 1997 act to be repealed, although I am not sure about section 3E, because that is a power to issue guidance, which I am not certain is replicated in amendment 115. However, I am content to support amendment 115 on the basis that, between now and stage 3, we have a stand-alone purpose and amend the new section to make it about the exercise of functions in development planning.

On amendment 115A, which is in my name, it was put to us in evidence that the planning system in Scotland does not sit in isolation from the planning system across the United Kingdom, which does not exist in isolation from that in Europe or indeed the world. With increasing global concerns about a number of areas that are expressed in the sustainable development goals, there are increasing numbers of international instruments that draw attention to the need to plan the use of land in ways that contribute to key international goals. We heard evidence that that would be a useful idea, and amendment 115A is specifically targeted at ministers and planning authorities exercising their functions. It is not actually related to the purpose of planning, which is why I lodged it as an amendment to amendment 115 rather than as a free-standing amendment.

I move amendment 115A.

The Convener

I call Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 5 and the other amendments in the group.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Thank you, convener. I welcome you to your new role and apologise for being late. However, here I am to speak to amendment 5.

As Andy Wightman said, the committee considered the issue carefully and concluded that there should be a purpose for planning. That seems to have been widely accepted and I am glad that the minister has lodged such an amendment.

I have been on a bit of a journey with this one. I started off including all kinds of things in the purpose for planning, so I had a couple of quite long versions of my amendment. I was then persuaded that it is better to keep it simple, which is where I ended up.

Amendment 5 could not be simpler. It is really only one sentence:

“The purpose of the planning system is to manage the development and use of land in the best long-term public interest.”

I think that that works and that we do not really need to add to it. However, there are other amendments to consider so, despite my view that we should keep things simple, I have had a good look at Kevin Stewart’s amendment 115. Nothing in it jars with me, so I am happy to support it. Similarly, Mr Wightman’s amendment 115A seems to make sense, although we would be getting very wordy. I would however be happy to support Mr Wightman’s amendment.

I have concerns about Monica Lennon’s amendment 103, because I am not clear how we get equality and human rights into the planning system. For that reason alone, I will not support amendment 103. I will move my amendment 5 and support the others.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I begin by welcoming the minister’s opening remarks, and allying myself with most of what Andy Wightman said. I will turn to Graham Simpson’s points later.

We have had a good debate on the planning system, and our scrutiny of the bill has been excellent. It is clear to us that everyone who engages in planning needs to know why we plan in the first place. That is why it is important that we have a purpose for planning in the bill, and I welcome the minister’s movement on that, notwithstanding the comments of his legal adviser, Mr Macleod.

We all agree that planning has to work for the best long-term public interest but, because planning has such a huge impact, including on the natural environment and on the nation’s health outcomes, it is important for the bill to say what planning is for and why we bother at all. The consequences of bad planning are catastrophic, here in Scotland and globally, which is why my amendment 103 seeks to ensure that spatial planning in Scotland is used to improve health and environmental outcomes and to promote equality and human rights.

I gently say to Graham Simpson that, if we do not understand that planning has to respect and protect human rights and embed equality into our decisions, we have a planning system that does not work for the vast majority of people. We have heard a lot of evidence from communities and organisations about why that matters. I am pleased that the amendment—my attempt to enshrine the right to health as a core planning objective—is supported by Voluntary Health Scotland, Alcohol Focus Scotland, Nourish Scotland, Obesity Action Scotland and Samaritans in Scotland, which is set out in a joint statement that was sent to members ahead of the stage 2 debate.

I accept that we may have to work on the language around health and environmental outcomes. I hear what Homes for Scotland has said about the words limiting the scope for planning and I am open to what we can do to further economic and social outcomes, although they are embedded already. I am disappointed that Graham Simpson does not support a commitment to equalities and human rights in the bill. We have some work to do. I welcome the progress that the Government has made, but the minister’s amendment 115 falls short; we really have to embed our ideals about improving public health. We know that inequality is spatially embedded in our communities and we have a big opportunity to get that right, not just for today but for the long term.

Annabelle Ewing

I ask the minister for a clarification when he responds to the points that have been raised. I thought that I heard him say that the UN sustainable development goals are embedded in national outcomes. If that is the case, any further reference would be unnecessary, from a drafting perspective, and may inadvertently risk confusion.

The Convener

As there are no other questions for the minister, I ask him to wind up. Andy Wightman will get a chance to wind up, too.

Kevin Stewart

I will answer Ms Ewing’s question first. The UN sustainable development goals are embedded in the national outcomes. The goals are an ever-changing feast, so they are difficult to put in primary legislation, as that would take away from the current situation in which we can change things quite easily. We would have to change primary legislation here in order to keep up with the times so, although Mr Wightman means his amendment to be helpful, it would actually be an impediment to keeping up with ever-changing situations in relation to sustainable development and international treaties.

What is the planning system for, if not for the authorities’ functions in the bill? Those functions are not clear in some of the amendments, which is why our amendment 115 is specific.

I do not want to reiterate certain points again and again but, with regard to what I said about Mr Macleod’s comments in the stage 1 evidence, it would not be helpful to introduce a purpose that would add further bureaucracy to the system. To use the same example as I gave earlier, do we really want to see every decision—including simple ones on things such as the advertising sign that I mentioned—be accompanied by a lengthy explanation of how it is in the long-term public interest? Some of the proposals are rather disproportionate. I therefore ask the committee to agree to amendment 115 and to reject amendments 115A, 5 and 103 in the names of Mr Wightman, Mr Simpson and Ms Lennon.

10:00

Andy Wightman

I will press amendment 115A.

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 115, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendment 103 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

I am convinced that there is a strong case for establishing the role of statutory planning officer. That will re-establish the role of planners as leaders in the improvement, protection and development of good-quality places for people—a theme that has been central to our review of planning. Clearly, it is for local authorities to make their own decisions about staffing and resourcing, and I agree with the points that Mr Simpson made. However, there is a need to raise the profile of the planning profession within authorities so that its relevance to a wide range of services is better understood.

Amendment 158 will require each local authority to have a chief planning officer. In setting out the role of chief planning officer, it focuses on the provision of planning advice to the authority. As well as requiring authorities to be satisfied that their chief planning officer has appropriate qualifications and experience, it will allow the Scottish ministers to provide guidance on qualifications and experience but will not oblige them to do so.

The role will vary in different local authorities, so amendment 158 does not set out in detail the specific duties of the chief planning officer. It is designed to be broad and flexible so that the post is established but planning authorities will be able to make their own decisions about how the role will work in their areas. I believe that that is a proportionate approach.

I am pleased that Andy Wightman agrees that that would be helpful, but his amendment 184 would impose wider requirements on planning authorities and ministers. In my opinion, it goes further than is necessary or appropriate. Chief planning officers should, of course, engage in community planning, but we have already strengthened the link with the local development plan, and there is no need to prescribe that as an additional duty.

In addition, amendment 184 would require ministers to prepare, consult on and adopt much more detailed guidance than is proposed in amendment 158, including on the outcomes to be achieved by the work of each authority’s chief planning officer and on promoting awareness of the role. There has been some debate about centralisation during the bill’s consideration. I think that amendment 184 would result in centralisation, which I do not want to see. I do not agree that aspects such as those that I have mentioned should be centrally defined, which is why amendment 158 is designed to allow authorities to tailor the role as they see fit.

Graham Simpson

What will change as a result of amendment 158? As I said earlier, councils have people who are responsible for planning but who can also be responsible for other areas. Does amendment 158 seek to change that, or will councils be able to leave things as they are?

Kevin Stewart

As I said, amendment 158 sets out the role of chief planning officer and focuses on the provision of planning advice to the authority. It will require authorities to be satisfied that their chief planning officer has appropriate qualifications and experience and, although it will allow us to provide guidance on qualifications and experience, it will not oblige us to do so.

Mr Simpson has made a point about the freedom of local authorities to do what they need to do in such regards, and I think that that is the right way forward. Amendment 184 is too prescriptive, and if it were to be agreed to, local authorities would be denied that freedom.

Therefore, I ask the committee to support amendment 158, and I ask Mr Wightman to seek to withdraw amendment 184.

Monica Lennon

I fully support Andy Wightman’s amendment 184, and I regret the fact that the minister’s amendment 158 is rather weak.

We need to set the issue in the context of what has been happening to local authorities and, in particular, to planning departments. I declare an interest as a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. There has been a 23 per cent reduction in the planning workforce in Scotland’s councils over the past six years. The budget pressures are well rehearsed, but because people have not had a clear understanding of the purpose of planning, we have not had joined-up thinking or corporate working.

10:15

The workforce has diminished across Scotland’s councils. In the summer, the Royal Town Planning Institute published UK-wide figures from a member survey, which looked at whether there was a head of planning in the top tiers of local government. The figures showed that the vast majority of UK councils—83 per cent—had planning lower down their tiers, but the figure was 94 per cent in Scotland. The issue is not about dictating what councils have to do but, if we are serious about the purpose of planning and its statutory function, it has to be properly resourced and have leadership. That is why amendment 184 is on the money and why I will support it.

Annabelle Ewing

It will be important to require that there be a chief planning officer, which amendment 158 does, but, nonetheless, each local authority should be afforded the ability to tailor that role vis-à-vis its planning operations, as Mr Stewart said. That approach respects the role of local authorities, which all members want to see.

Andy Wightman

We obviously differ in degree, and I do not accept the arguments that amendment 184 is overprescriptive or that it limits planning authorities’ freedom to organise things as they want to. Scotland has one planning system and we need a bit more prescription about the chief planning officer role to ensure a certain minimum of standards, responsibilities and functions carried out uniformly across Scotland by that person.

I am perfectly prepared to accept that some of the detail that is spelled out in amendment 184 might be redundant or go too far, and I am happy to have the conversation between stage 2 and stage 3, which we will have because there is broad agreement that there shall be an amendment to provide that there shall be a chief planning officer.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 184 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 184 disagreed to.

Section 1—National Planning Framework

The Convener

Group 3 is on the national planning framework. It is a very big group of amendments, so to facilitate debate, it has been divided into five sub-groups, which debate will be structured around. When that is completed, we will dispose of amendments as normal.

For each sub-group, I will call those who have amendments in the sub-group to speak. Members will be called in the order in which their amendments appear, as usual. There will then be the opportunity for any other member who wishes to speak on the sub-group to do so. Finally, if he has not already been called, I will give the minister an opportunity to comment on the amendments in each sub-group. Members should not move, press or withdraw their amendments unless I indicate to them that they should do so.

I draw members’ attention to the information about pre-emptions that is in the groupings document, which I will remind members about when we reach the amendments in question. I point out that both amendments 38 and 39 pre-empt amendment 6—that information was omitted in error from the groupings document.

The first sub-group is on the form and content of the national planning framework. Amendment 185 is in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Good morning to the convener, minister and members. I appreciate that I am an interloper in the committee and take the opportunity to extend my thanks to the committee members who have included me in discussions around the foothills of the bill and have explained a lot of its contents to me. I am very grateful for that.

Members will remember that the Liberal Democrats were the only party to oppose the bill at stage 1. As the bill is currently worded, the pre-eminence of the national planning framework is intended to bolster the powers of ministers. That was the reasoning behind amendment 185, in my name. If members look at the change that section 1 of the bill would make to section 3A(2) of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, on the national planning framework, they will see that it attempts to delete the wording

“in broad terms how the Scottish Ministers consider that the development and use of land could and should occur”

and replace it with a phrase that suggests that the national planning framework is how ministerial policy will be put into action.

I have discussed the issue with Liberal council group leaders across the country and, as Liberals, we cannot in good conscience support such a movement of power to the centre. The minister may argue that the issue is one of phrasing and semantics, but I say that the wording sets the tone for the entire bill, which unnecessarily and disproportionately empowers ministers at the expense of planning authorities. If we pass the bill unamended, we will see councils relegated to the role of consultees. I was gratified to hear the minister say that he did not want to see centralisation in the bill. I hope that he and other SNP members will support amendment 185.

Amendment 163 is a similar amendment to amendment 185, based on the Government’s proposed amendments to that section of the 1997 act. Although we are not voting on them just now, I give my party’s support to amendments 38 and 39, in the name of Graham Simpson, to better empower the Scottish Parliament. We also support amendments 39A and 39B, in the name of Andy Wightman in respect of extending the consultation periods for the Scottish Parliament.

I move amendment 185.

Graham Simpson

I have several amendments in the group: amendments 30, 31, 41, 116O and 116S. I hope that members will bear with me.

On amendment 30, the national planning framework should define regional housing targets. Given that the subject of the bill is planning, the amendment focuses on

“targets for the use of land in different areas of Scotland for housing.”

As there are no formally defined regions, the amendment uses the word “areas” instead. Homes for Scotland has backed amendment 30. It says that if the statutory development plan for an area is to comprise two components, the MPF and the local development plan, clarity must be provided on their respective roles. Homes for Scotland says that amendment 30 would help to achieve that clarity.

The national planning framework should be more integrated with wider Government policies and strategies. Amendment 31 extends that obligation to include the national transport strategy, the strategic transport projects review, the land use strategy, the national marine plan, the infrastructure investment plan, the programme for adaptation to climate change and the housing national strategy and action plan. The aim is to join it all up.

Amendment 116O, which is also supported by Homes for Scotland, is an amendment to amendment 116, which we have not yet discussed. It sets

“targets for the use of land in different areas of Scotland for housing.”

We have a housing crisis. The Conservatives believe that the national planning framework should include targets for land set aside for housebuilding. We need to increase housebuilding. There is a role for the Government in that. I hear what Alex Cole-Hamilton is saying about centralisation, but it would be remiss of any Government not to set housing targets.

Amendment 116S says:

“The National Planning Framework must be prepared with due regard to other relevant policies and strategies”.

I have covered that issue already.

I promised not to speak for too long, but I would like to address amendment 116, in the name of Kevin Stewart. If we were to accept it, it would sweep away other amendments that I think are positive ones, so I am not minded to support it.

Monica Lennon

I have already been quite clear that my proposed purpose of planning involves the fact that the planning system has the potential to have a positive impact on health outcomes across Scotland. That can be realised only if we embed the idea at every stage of decision making in planning. The idea is that people’s health should be taken into account during the development of the national planning framework and local development plans and at individual development level. Amendment 104 intends to ensure that the consideration of the health effects of any national development is enshrined in the development of the national planning framework and is taken into account at that level.

Amendment 83A seeks to amend amendment 83, in the name of Andy Wightman. At stage 1, we heard from Engender, whose submission to the committee said that it believed that gender equality had been inadequately embedded in the planning process as set out in the bill. We have on-going discussions about the relevance of equality to planning, and I do not want to rehearse all the arguments here. However, I appreciate that some members still need to be convinced, which is why I consider that we have to have such matters set out very clearly in the bill.

I will support Andy Wightman’s amendment 83. My minor suggested changes seek the addition of the words “and equality” after “gender”, which is intended to make it much more explicit that the national planning framework should be required to set out how it will promote and take account of gender equality in Scotland, rather than simply reporting on how the policy and proposals in the national planning framework relate to gender. I know that the minister has committed to having further discussions with Engender and other equality groups, and I look forward to hearing how those are going.

The Convener

I call Kenneth Gibson to speak to his amendments—

Kenneth Gibson

Of course, there is a huge swathe—

The Convener

—and to other amendments in the group.

Kenneth Gibson

I am sorry, convener; I was so excited about the possibility of speaking on the bill that I jumped in before you had finished.

Amendments 116A and 116B are belt-and-braces amendments, which would apply if amendment 116 were to be agreed to. Amendments 167, 168, 116A and 116B are amendments to ensure that the provision of housing for older people and disabled people is considered in the national planning framework.

Amendment 167 seeks to amend section 3A(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to include a specific statement in the NPF that focuses on our housing priorities in relation to older people and disabled people to help to meet their housing needs.

Amendment 116A seeks to include what the Scottish ministers consider to be the priorities for housing that is suitable for older people and disabled people. The NPF has a strategic role to play in the development and use of land in Scotland and in the setting of national infrastructure priorities. That should include setting clear national targets for delivering older people’s and disabled people’s housing where it would be most effective and deliver the best outcomes.

Amendments 116, 167 and 116A address the housing challenges that arise from the demographics of Scotland’s rapidly ageing population, which underline the need to invest in housing for older people and disabled people. Scotland’s population of older people is projected to increase significantly, with the number who are aged 65 and over being expected to rise by 59 per cent to 1.5 million by 2039. Many of those will be infirm or have disabilities. There is therefore a pressing requirement to ensure that the housing needs of older people and disabled people are explicitly recognised in the planning system.

Housing has a key role to play in allowing older and disabled people to live independent, healthy and active lives at home for as long as possible. Investment in housing will save resources that would otherwise be spent on health and social care, help to tackle loneliness and isolation, and contribute to improved health and wellbeing.

10:30

Amendments 167 and 116A would ensure that a strategic co-ordinated national approach is taken to address the housing needs of older and disabled people and that planning authorities, developers, the third sector and other key agencies take a consistent approach. Without a strategic approach, there is a real risk that the housing needs of Scotland’s ageing population will go unmet, with significant consequences for older people, disabled people and society as a whole.

Planning policy must anticipate the long-term needs of Scotland’s ageing population and plan now to deliver the different types, tenures and sizes of homes that are urgently required in the future—homes specifically adapted for people living with dementia, mobility issues, disabilities and sensory impairment.

Amendments 168 and 116B would provide national targets in the national planning framework to address the housing needs of older and disabled people, including the adaption of existing housing and the building of new housing. Setting clear targets for the provision of older people’s housing will help us to proof the provision.

The case for national targets is further underlined by the increase in housing needs for single older people, which is projected to rise by 45 per cent to almost half a million by 2039. The amendments are being moved in order that society can help to address those issues.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

I want to speak to my amendments 211, 212, 213, 116R, 116T and 116U. I was brought up in a small community in Wester Ross. Over the years I have watched the fortunes of that part of the region change, with population decline being a constant challenge. It was, therefore, with some horror that I read a recent report from the James Hutton Institute that was commissioned by the Scottish Government. It states that areas such as the one where I was brought up risk losing over a quarter of their already reduced population by 2046. That will threaten their very existence.

That is not just a challenge for the Highlands and Islands; it also impacts on the southern uplands and many parts of rural Scotland. So, what is our response to be, as a society and as a Parliament? Past planning systems and land-use policy have caused some of the decline and, therefore, we must have something to offer by way of a solution to the challenges that we face.

Our rural areas provide huge benefits for Scotland. They are places that people in Scotland like to visit because they are beautiful. However, as well as having nice countryside and wild places for people to visit, we surely want to visit living places and vibrant communities with distinct culture and traditions. It is time to give the people dimension of the countryside greater status in building future planning policy, not just to retain but to restore the population. People are the lifeblood of those places.

The challenge is to ensure that Scotland’s planning system facilitates rural repopulation and balances sustainable economic development with protection of our natural heritage. The Planning (Scotland) Bill offers an important opportunity to make sure that we focus on the real challenges of our rural areas and my amendments seek to take advantage of that opportunity.

Amendment 211 is perhaps modest in scope in relation to those matters, but it is an important building block towards ensuring that the planning system enables Scotland’s rural places and communities to thrive and prosper. It requires that

“Scottish Ministers must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that ... the population of rural areas ... increases”,

and that

“resettlement is encouraged in rural areas that have become depopulated.”

It asks nothing more than that ministers should consider the desirability of those objectives when preparing the national planning framework. Placing such a duty on ministers sends an important signal that rural repopulation is a matter that Parliament requires ministers to consider seriously in framing future planning policy. It is also a signal that the sustainable development of Scotland’s rural places is a policy priority that is shared by all.

Amendment 212 is designed to assist in the development of a national planning framework through the production of maps and associated materials relating to no-longer inhabited human settlements. The purpose of those maps is to show where in Scotland’s rural areas human settlements previously existed, thereby providing an indication of where rural repopulation may be desirable through resettlement, as expressed in local development plans and local place plans.

Graham Simpson

I must admit that, when I read amendment 212, I was slightly baffled about its intention. It asks for the national planning framework to contain

“maps, diagrams, illustrations ... of no longer inhabited human settlement”.

The first question that arose in my mind—it arose in the minds of others, too—was, “How far back do you want us to go?” Should we go back to Roman times or pre-Roman times? What are you trying to achieve? What you propose could create an enormous amount of work.

Rhoda Grant

We would not go back that far. Anyone who goes into our countryside—this is certainly the case in the areas that I cover in my region—will be very aware of villages that used to be there. Uninhabited houses are visible where whole communities have disappeared. I suggest that we should go back to the time of the clearances, when areas were cleared to make way for sheep, but not much further back than that. There are communities in our glens that were vibrant and which could be vibrant again, and it is important to indicate that. Of course, the issue is partly one for the plan, so it would be necessary to consult to make sure that that was a desirable outcome for those communities. It is important that the local people who are still there, as well as people who were in those communities or had family in them, are involved in that consultation process, so that we make sure that those areas form part of the national plan.

The Convener

Have you finished, Rhoda?

Rhoda Grant

No—I have a couple more comments to make.

The criteria for creating the maps and associated material would be developed after public consultation, so the proposal would be consulted on, as detailed in amendment 216, which we will come to later.

The maps of human settlements that are no longer inhabited will complement Scotland’s network of 42 wild land maps, which covers 3.7 million acres, by representing a material consideration in relation to planning decisions. The crofting community where I was raised was surrounded by so-called wild land, but much of it was actively crofted and stocked with sheep in the summer. It might be right that we have maps of wild land, but I would have thought that it would also be right for us to map our human heritage, so that we understand that the landscapes that we see today were once home to families and entire communities. I hope that those places might once again ring with the voices of children playing in that wonderful environment, which would not in any way compromise the scenic characteristics of the landscape.

The maps that I envisage being produced would bring to life the understanding of not only what our landscape’s history has been, but what its future might be, in which people and nature could co-exist to their mutual benefit.

Amendment 213 is intended to give the Scottish ministers the option, when they prepare the national planning framework, to assess existing legislation or national strategies that could be amended to improve their impact on delivering the planning system’s outcomes. In doing so, it seeks to provide an opportunity to join up the planning system with existing legislation and national strategies to produce a more cohesive policy framework. It is intended to offer flexibility and to be of assistance to ministers.

If amendment 116 is agreed to, amendments 116R, 116T and 116U simply repeat the provisions of amendments 211, 212 and 213—basically, I am hedging my bets against that. I will say nothing more for now, but when the time comes, I hope to move those amendments.

The Convener

Thank you very much, Rhoda.

Andy Wightman

The sub-group of amendments includes amendment 116, which seeks to delete and replace the whole of section 1. There are many amendments to section 1 for us to get through, some of which I support and some of which I do not. Of course, we will not vote on amendment 116 until we have dealt with all the other amendments to section 1 and all the amendments to amendment 116.

I will start with amendment 185, in Alex Cole-Hamilton’s name. I can assure him that the bill will be amended by the time we reach stage 3. I have some sympathy with the Liberals’ position, but I think their view of the proposed amendment to section 3A(2) of the 1997 act is rather misplaced. We are talking about an alternative wording. There is broad agreement that there should be a national planning framework. Provision was made for that in 2006 and there are several amendments to that in the bill that we are debating. If the Liberals do not agree with the idea of a national planning framework, it would be useful to hear that they do not.

The question is, what is the national planning framework to do? The 1997 act describes it as something that set out

“in broad terms how the Scottish Ministers consider that the development and use of land could and should occur.”

However, the bill deletes those words and instead will amend the 1997 act to say that the national planning framework is to set out

“the Scottish Ministers’ policies and proposals for the development and use of land.”

That form of words is more elegant and more succinctly captures what the national planning framework is. I am content with that wording and I do not believe that it has the ulterior motives that Alex Cole-Hamilton attributes to it.

I agree with amendments 30, 104, 167, 31 and 211. I draw members’ attention to amendment 104, in Monica Lennon’s name, which is part of a suite of amendments that seek to incorporate health in the planning system. That is a very important proposition. I am aware that there may be some concerns about it, and I am open to having conversations on that, but it has echoes of the genesis of the town and country planning system in 1947.

Soon after the war, the Scottish Office—as it was then—set up the Scottish home and health department. Home and health were linked intentionally, because there was a wide awareness that the living conditions of people across the United Kingdom were substantially suboptimal, that the war had drained the country and that, in the process of reconstruction, people’s health was a vital interest. It was understood that people’s health was materially impacted on by the environment in which they lived and therefore the environment should be substantially designed and planned for people. One of the first people to work in the Scottish home and health department on advancing that remit was the planner Ian McHarg, who went on to become internationally renowned and founded the school of landscape architecture at the University of Pennsylvania.

It is a very important debate, particularly when we discuss the increasing pressure on the health service and the need to ensure that people are healthier—the aim is to reduce the pressure on the NHS and have a healthier population.

Amendment 211, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is also part of a suite of amendments and is also very interesting. We heard evidence from Community Land Scotland on the subject. It is quite a departure, but it is very healthy that the planning system should begin to reflect a bit on decisions that were made in the past—I am not talking about Roman times—about the use of land, prior to the introduction of the formal town and country planning system in 1947. Considerations about how land was used in 1870, 1890, 1920, 1940, 1950 and 1960 should inform our view on how land should be developed in the future. The amendments in Rhoda Grant’s name ensure that the information necessary to take that view is incorporated at the outset.

Amendment 83, in my name, is also one of a series of amendments—they will crop up in different parts of the bill—to the national planning framework, strategic development plans and local development plans, such that the plans include a statement setting out how the policies in those plans will take account of and impact on gender equality. I thank Monica Lennon for amendment 83, which is very helpful and clarifies that the issue is gender equality. Amendment 116F replicates that.

10:45

Academic research has shown that the design and planning of the built environment is and can be heavily gendered, with a disproportionate negative impact on women and girls. There are very good examples across Europe. I highlight the example of the city of Vienna in Austria, which is doing remarkable and interesting work on that issue.

Practice is evolving, and the fact that we know through academic research that the planning system is gendered and, therefore, that it has an impact on equalities should be reflected in our laws on planning. We should ensure that there is a statement—the amendment calls for no more than that—setting out how the plans and policies in those areas will take account of gender equality.

I was awaiting Rhoda Grant’s explanation of amendment 213, because I confess that I did not really understand what it was about. I am content with it, as long as it is clear that it is merely an option for ministers that “The framework may contain” those things.

I agree that the process of drawing up the national planning framework will engage questions about the use of land on which other strategies and other bits of legislation have an impact. It is appropriate to draw to the attention of Parliament and the people of Scotland the fact that we may need to change some legislation or amend various strategies in order to achieve the goals set out in the national planning framework, and it would be helpful to draw attention to that in the draft framework.

Amendment 116 is a substantive amendment, and I will not be supporting it, for two reasons. First, it would delete section 1 entirely, together with any amendments made to it. That is countered to some extent by the fact that people have taken out insurance policies in the form of the long list of amendments to amendment 116.

More substantively, amendment 116 contains proposals for how the function of current strategic development planning might be taken forward in future; in other words, it is taking in the subject matter of sections 1 and 2. The specific proposals subordinate strategic planning to any input to national planning.

We will talk more about that when we come to section 2 and the proposed amendments to it. I believe and will argue that we should retain the current framework for strategic planning, so I cannot vote for an amendment that presumes to remove that.

Amendment 155 would be pre-empted by my amendment 48, which forms part of a series of amendments that are designed to retain strategic development plans, so I will be voting against amendment 155.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I thank the clerking staff for their assistance. My colleague Andy Wightman has spoken to the other amendments, so I will restrict my comments to amendment 160. I have lodged other amendments that we will come to at a future date.

Amendment 160 asks that

“The framework ... have regard to the desirability of preserving disused railway infrastructure for the purpose of ensuring its availability for possible future public transport requirements.”

At the moment, the national planning framework, which we are told is a statute for all of Scotland, makes reference to

“supporting change in areas where, in the past, there has been a legacy of decline.”

It also says that it

“brings together our plans and strategies in economic development, regeneration, energy, environment, climate change”

and “transport”, and there are references to

“the construction of new and/or upgraded railway track exceeding 8 kilometres connecting existing networks to the freight handling facility.”

Unless we can secure the desirability of preserving that infrastructure, there will be challenges for constructing the new and upgraded track.

The second page of the national planning framework is about outcomes. Rather than read the entire page, I will go quickly across the four columns that outline the planning outcomes. The first outcome is:

“Planning makes Scotland a successful, sustainable place—supporting sustainable economic growth and regeneration, and the creation of well-designed places”.

Amendment 160 certainly meets those criteria.

The next outcome is about low carbon and there are, of course, opportunities there. The third is:

“Planning makes Scotland a natural, resilient place—helping to protect and enhance our natural and cultural assets, and facilitating their sustainable use.”

Again, amendment 160 would meet that objective. The final outcome is:

“Planning makes Scotland a connected place—supporting better transport”.

If we genuinely want to see a move from road to rail for passengers and freight, we need to maintain the infrastructure that there is. Amendment 160 would play its part in that.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Good morning, colleagues and minister. Amendment 214 would require the national planning framework to

“have regard to an infrastructure investment plan published by the Scottish Ministers and include a statement setting out the ways the plan has been taken into account in preparing the framework”.

The existing IIP sets out priorities for investment and a long-term strategy for the development of public infrastructure in Scotland. It is designed to be complementary to the budget. My amendment is a probing amendment, and I would welcome comments from the minister and other members of the committee.

On 30 July this year, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham, said in a letter to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee:

“The Scottish Government is committed to supporting the delivery of low-carbon infrastructure as a vital part of our long-term transition to a carbon-neutral Scotland. Our current Infrastructure Investment Plan, published in December 2015, supports Scotland’s climate change goals by making low carbon considerations one of the guiding principles upon which investments are prioritised.”

She draws to a close by saying:

“The current Plan includes a range of long-term low carbon commitments, such as; energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority, broadband coverage and rail electrification. Future refreshes of the Plan will take into account the requirements of Scotland’s climate change legislation at that point in time.”

The IIP is an important document in terms of climate change focus, and I am aware that its current scope goes beyond infrastructure. The intention behind amendment 214 is to give the IIP statutory weight and to stress its link with the planning system, but my proposed approach might restrict the document in such a way that we would require a new section setting out the form and content of the IIP and stipulations on how to prepare it. I would welcome further discussion on that.

As drafted, the amendment gives the IIP some statutory weight, and the statement detailing the national performance framework’s compatibility with an IIP ensures a joined-up approach. That would bring the benefits of a longer-term vision, a cross-portfolio awareness and greater consistency in linking the low-carbon agenda with financial budgets and capital investment.

Amendment 116V would have the same effect, and was lodged as a contingency to the passing of amendment 116.

Convener, with your forbearance, am I allowed to comment briefly on other amendments in the group, or is that not acceptable?

The Convener

In the sub-group? Yes.

Claudia Beamish

Thank you. I will speak in support of Rhoda Grant’s amendment 211 and others in the group that she highlighted, and reinforce what she stressed about the people dimension to rural planning. There are real challenges for rural regeneration, and in my view those amendments could contribute to that important cause for rural people. They support sustainable development across rural Scotland, not just in the Highlands but in my region of South Scotland.

In speaking about Monica Lennon’s amendment 83A I should declare an interest. I have just become convener of the cross-party group on men’s violence against women and children, and that should be recorded in the Official Report. I support my colleague Monica Lennon’s amendment on gender equality in the planning system. In this day and age, we need to take those things into account. The points were eloquently made by both Monica Lennon and Andy Wightman, so I will leave it at that.

Finally, I support John Finnie’s amendment 160, having taken a strong interest in rail issues. There are a number of places where links need to be maintained very carefully. It is important to record that, in recognition of rail’s contribution to low carbon and connectivity.

The Convener

Thank you. After the minister has spoken to amendment 116 and others in this sub-group, we will have a five-minute break.

Kevin Stewart

Grand, convener; I am glad that we will have a break after this. I apologise to you and the committee members for creating a monster group with the addition of amendment 116.

I hear Mr Simpson’s fears, but very few amendments have been removed by amendment 116 that have not been repeated as amendments to it. The position that was taken was that the bill as introduced plus the amendment that was proposed by the Government would be much easier to read. In proposing further amendments to the provisions that will amend the 1997 act, we reached the point at which it was clearer to rewrite the whole piece.

However, I appreciate that that has caused complications in managing some of the other amendments. I recognise that, in many cases, members have made parallel proposals for the current version of the bill and for amendment 116, and I will address each pair of amendments together. I will speak to the relevant parts of amendment 116 in relation to each sub-group.

The proposed new section 3A in amendment 116 covers the form and content of the national planning framework, which remains largely unchanged from the bill. It adds a requirement to include a statement of what land the Scottish ministers consider requires to be made available for housing.

In addition, proposed new section 3A(6) will ensure that Scottish ministers are not prevented from setting out policies beyond the national planning framework. That is an important clarification, as it would not be reasonable to expect Parliament to approve every planning policy the Scottish Government produces.

I know that we will have a fuller debate on strategic planning in a later group, as Mr Wightman mentioned. However, at this stage it is important to explain more about our thinking on that in amendment 116, as that is where we have addressed the topic.

I have followed closely the debate about strategic development planning in Scotland, and I remain of the view that existing arrangements need to be updated if strategic planning is to realise its full potential. We must be clear that fulfilling timescales and producing new plans every five years is not enough to make a real difference to the lives of people living within the four city regions. It also means very little to people living in the rest of Scotland. My amendment will therefore introduce a new duty for strategic planning that moves away from procedure, extends to all parts of Scotland and re-establishes strategic planning as a more visionary and influential pursuit.

Proposed new section 3AE introduces a new duty for Scottish ministers to have regard to strategic development reports in preparing, revising or amending the national planning framework. That is a significant new addition that reflects the importance that the Scottish Government attaches to strategic planning and our intention to work collaboratively.

Proposed new section 3AH sets out the requirement on planning authorities to produce strategic development reports that include a spatial strategy. That is a significant change from text-heavy lengthy plans that largely repeat national policy.

The duty is also flexible. It does not set a fixed timescale, there is no prescription of the governance or administrative arrangements required, and it does not dictate which authorities should work together. That is a significant improvement on what we have in existing legislation. Planning authorities can address strategic planning in a way that reflects the value it can add, rather than because they have to. The amendment also makes provision for consultation on the strategic development report.

Finally, proposed new section 3AH(8) sets out the definition of “strategic development”. Strategic development might or might not extend across administrative boundaries, but it will have an impact in more than one planning authority area. That will be open for planning authorities and their partners to define.

I now turn to the amendments that relate to proposed new section 3A. In amendments 184 and 116E, Alex Cole-Hamilton has proposed retaining the existing description of the national planning framework, which does not include the Scottish planning policy.

When we introduced the bill, we explained our reasons for making a change. It could play a significant role in streamlining the planning system by removing duplication between different tiers of the statutory development plan. There was support for that throughout our consultation, and the committee agreed that it is a sensible idea.

11:00

At present, each and every local development plan includes a set of policies that routinely simply restate the terms of the Scottish planning policy. That does not add value. Rather than pages and pages of policy wording, I would much prefer to see a clear local spatial strategy to guide future development. Authorities will be able to bring forward tailored local policies when there is a clear justification to do so, and they will be explored and tested at the gate-check stage. We will restructure our existing policy framework so that it acknowledges significant differences between planning matters in different areas. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 185.

The remainder of the amendments in the group seek to add specific issues that the national planning framework must contain or take into account. I cannot support most of the amendments. The point is not that the issues are not important; it is that they are already covered in the framework or Scottish planning policy, or will be incorporated into it in the future. My aim is to ensure that we do not duplicate existing requirements and that we avoid making primary legislation overly prescriptive.

Housing is clearly key to development planning, and amendment 116 explicitly states that the NPF must set out a statement of housing land requirements. We are reviewing the methodology for addressing that, but we have not yet determined whether targets are the most appropriate approach. Other options might include, for example, setting out estimates, aspirations or minimum requirements, or a range of those. There could be tensions if the national planning framework went too far in imposing targets for housing in local areas, so that needs careful consideration. I therefore do not support the amendments from Graham Simpson or Alexander Stewart that seek to set targets.

The methodology for addressing housing land requirements will consider how the needs for different types of housing should be assessed. Currently, as part of the housing need and demand assessment, local authorities are required to consider the need for specialist provision. That covers accessible and adapted housing, wheelchair housing and supported accommodation, including care homes and sheltered housing. The need for other types of accommodation and the needs of different types of household and, for example, Gypsy Traveller communities also have to be considered. All that will feed into the national planning framework.

In the national planning framework and our intentions for Scottish planning policy, we are putting in place a number of new things to allow for that. I do not want duplication and I do not want a situation—I have to say that we have been accused of creating such a situation during this process—where we make decisions centrally that local authorities need to make in their local development plans, such as decisions on house numbers.

I return to my point about our seriousness on the issues. It is not appropriate to highlight one particular group of people in the national planning framework in the way that amendments 167 and 116R would do, so I cannot support them. I recognise that further amendments in a similar vein will be considered when the committee discusses local development plans.

Monica Lennon’s amendments on assessing the health impacts of development and Andy Wightman’s on gender would duplicate existing impact assessments that sit within a more comprehensive framework. Health impact assessment is undertaken as a matter of course as part of the strategic environmental assessment of any part of the development plan, and it is followed up when required by a more detailed environmental impact assessment at project level.

On gender and equality issues, the 1997 act already requires ministers and planning authorities to

“perform their functions under this Act in a manner which encourages equal opportunities”.

In addition, ministers and local authorities are subject to the fairer Scotland duty and the public sector equality duty deriving from the Equality Act 2010. The public sector equality duty, in particular, requires the assessment of evidence, commissioning of research or consultation as appropriate, consideration of mitigating factors and publication of the authority’s conclusions. It is also regulated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which can take appropriate action if authorities are not compliant.

Amendment 116 would require Scottish ministers to provide Parliament with a summary of the findings of any assessment of the likely impact of the proposed revised national planning framework, which would include the equality impact assessment and the strategic impact assessment. The Scottish Government takes the issues seriously, but the amendments would simply introduce additional bureaucracy without any additional benefits. I ask the committee to reject amendments 104 and 116P, 83, 83A, and 116F.

I have no objection in principle to John Finnie’s amendment 160, and he will find me much persuaded by other amendments that will come in due course on preserving disused railway lines that could be suitable for future public transport. That is already established as a policy in paragraph 277 of the Scottish planning policy, which will have greater weight in the future if the SPP, as part of the national planning framework, has development plan status. I ask Mr Finnie not to move amendment 160, given that it is already covered in policy, and that I feel that it is too specific in this context.

Graham Simpson and Rhoda Grant are seeking to ensure that the national planning framework takes into account the impact of wider legislation, policies and strategies. I am conscious that many stakeholders support stronger alignment of the NPF with wider policies and strategies, and I agree that that is very important. That has always been done, with NPF3 having done a particularly thorough job of bringing together that wider policy context for planning. The list in Graham Simpson’s amendment could be viewed as incomplete and it will become outdated in time. Although I understand that it is not intended to be comprehensive, planning authorities could consider that the policies listed have a greater importance than others.

I also have concerns about Rhoda Grant’s amendments, as they would lead to the addition of a potentially significant volume of detailed and technical information. I therefore ask Graham Simpson and Rhoda Grant not to move their amendments. Instead, I would be happy to work with them to introduce at stage 3 a high-level requirement for the national planning framework to reflect other national policies and strategies.

Claudia Beamish’s amendments 214 and 116V would require the national planning framework to have regard to the infrastructure investment plan when designating national developments. The Scottish Government has already stated that it will seek to align the next version of the national planning framework with the infrastructure investment plan. I also want to ensure that future iterations of the infrastructure investment plan reflect the national planning framework. That is a clear priority.

That does not mean that all national development must be fully funded in the infrastructure investment plan—the national planning framework can include unfunded, long-term aspirational projects as well as those that are more immediately deliverable, with responsibility for delivery shared by the public and private sectors. However, with all that in mind, I am comfortable with supporting amendments 214 and 116V from Claudia Beamish.

I turn to amendments 211 and 212 in Rhoda Grant’s name, on resettling rural land, and their equivalent amendments, 116R and 116T. I have a lot of sympathy for those who criticise planning for sometimes taking an urban-centric view of our countryside. It is critical that the planning system plays a more active role in meeting the needs of rural communities. We can all agree that planning can and should do more to support rural communities.

I also agree that, in principle, resettling previously populated areas could help to achieve that. However, before we fully establish that as a requirement in the legislation, there needs to be fuller analysis and consultation on those proposals. Resettlement might not be appropriate in every area, and the Scottish Parliament should not go too far in instructing local authorities how to address the issue.

We need to look at potential pitfalls, such as the provision of public services, the impact on climate change emissions, and the risk of unfettered rural development that is out of keeping with the area. If I may stray into another sub-group for a moment, convener, I suggest that the amendments in Alasdair Allan’s name, which we will come to later, are more measured and therefore more appropriate for primary legislation.

I ask Rhoda Grant not to move her amendments and to allow us to do the work that needs to be done on that issue in a sensible way.

Thank you for your patience, convener. I have spoken at length, but I have tried to address all the elements of the amendments that we are considering today.

The Convener

Thank you, minister. We will suspend briefly before we debate the next sub-group.

11:12 Meeting suspended.

11:20 On resuming—

The Convener

We now move to the debate on the next sub-group. I remind members that we will dispose of the amendments after having debated all five sub-groups.

The second sub-group is on consultation on the national planning framework. I invite Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 215 and other amendments in the sub-group.

Monica Lennon

The intention of amendment 215 is to improve transparency in the planning system. We always hear that the planning system is about land being used in the public interest and that the public must know how planning decisions are being made. It is not always immediately obvious how decisions are reached, who is consulted or why, nor is it very easy to find that out. Amendment 215 will clearly lay out who must be consulted and when. It will also provide opportunities to ensure that the right organisations are being consulted.

As we know, planning decisions can have many unintended consequences. For example, building a football pitch has implications not just for sport but for young people, the wider community and our health, which is a recurring theme today.

Kenneth Gibson

Amendments 169 and 116C specify the need to consult

“older people and disabled people, and their families,”

and such persons as represent

“the interests of older people and disabled people, including organisations working for, and on behalf of, older people and disabled people”.

In addition, the amendments specify the need to consult carers, planning authorities, registered social landlords and developers.

The purpose of the amendments is to embed in legislation the requirement for consultation in developing the national planning framework, and to require the Scottish Government to consult a range of people on the targets that are to be set by Scottish ministers on the housing needs of older and disabled people.

Rhoda Grant

I will speak to amendments 216 and 116W. I set the scene for the amendments earlier, so I will not repeat those comments. The amendments relate to maps of no-longer inhabited human settlements and associated material that is contained in amendments 212 and 116T, which we debated earlier. They make provision for a public consultation on the criteria for developing the maps and associated material.

Graham Simpson

Do you accept that naming people who must be consulted does not prevent wider consultation of others?

Kevin Stewart

It has been the norm for Parliament to deal with such matters through secondary legislation. Naming individuals or organisations and not naming others can cause a lot of grief in terms of setting that out in primary legislation. It is much better to do it in secondary legislation because others will no doubt come forward and say that they should be named in the primary legislation if certain other individuals or organisations are named.

Kenneth Gibson’s amendments 169 and 116C propose an extensive list of specific interests to consult to inform his proposed targets on housing for older and disabled people. His amendments focus on the requirement for the participation statement for the national planning framework. Again, I agree that it is an important issue, but I am concerned that the amendments are too narrowly defined; many different interests could equally argue that they should be listed.

Kenneth Gibson

A lot of members accept what you are saying in principle, but our experience so far is that that has not really happened, which is why this belt-and-braces approach is being proposed by a number of members of the committee.

Kevin Stewart

Mr Gibson has been a member of Parliament for a long time, so he will know about the difficulties around naming some groups or things but not others in primary legislation. It has been the norm to deal with such lists through secondary legislation. I have said that I agree that we have to look at what is required for housing for older and disabled people: nobody would dispute that. Mr Gibson can be assured that I will do all that I can to ensure that their views are heard, but that does not necessarily mean that they need to be listed in primary legislation.

On amendments 216 and 116W from Rhoda Grant, I agree that if a map of no-longer inhabited settlements is to be included in the national planning framework, consultation should be undertaken. However, I make the same point that this is a very specific requirement and should not be necessary.

I cannot support Monica Lennon’s amendments 215 and 116Q and what they propose, even in principle. The amendments would require the national planning framework to include a “complete list” of persons to be consulted in the carrying out of any and all planning functions under the 1997 act. The circumstances for, and purpose of, consulting them would also have to be set out.

I ask everybody to follow in Mr Wightman’s footsteps.

Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

I will speak to amendments 71 and 116K.

Amendment 71 seeks to add “cultural” to the list of characteristics that need to be considered in the advice that would be given to the Scottish ministers for the national planning framework. The amendment recognises the importance of cultural assets to communities. Including it in the bill would reflect the recent inclusion of culture as an outcome in the national performance framework, indicate the significance of culture and acknowledge its benefits to society.

Local government is under significant financial pressure. Culture lacks statutory protection, can be vulnerable and is at risk of being overlooked and undervalued. Amendment 71 seeks to acknowledge the importance of local cultural assets and access in decision making.

Amendment 116K has the same aim as amendment 71 and will protect it if the committee agrees to the minister’s amendment 116, which would replace section 1.

Graham Simpson

Amendment 72 is not particularly controversial. It would ensure that information about the built heritage was included in consideration of the NPF. A planning authority would have to include information about an area’s built heritage when the NPF was prepared.

My intention with amendment 32 was to make it an obligation under proposed new section 3AA(2) of the 1997 act that information on housing needs be included among the matters to be taken into consideration in the formulation of the national planning framework. From what I heard from the minister, he did not seem to go along with that, but I will press it. Amendment 33 relates to the capacity of education services, so it is similar to amendment 32.

Homes for Scotland backs amendments 32 and 33. It is not in favour of everything that I have proposed but it is in favour of those amendments. It says:

“amendment 32 would assist the target-setting role of the NPF by ensuring evidence on housing need is provided to Ministers by planning authorities for the purpose of NPF preparation. On a point of detail, if need is intended here to cover ... all tenures then this should be made clear.”

We have touched on my other amendments in this sub-group. They are amendments to amendment 116, so I will not speak to them.

Monica Lennon

I will speak to amendments 105 and 106.

Amendment 105 is intended to ensure that the national planning framework considers the impact of developments on the capacity of existing health services in the area. It seeks to ensure that the development of the NPF is responsive to the health needs of the population and that there is a direct link between the development of the framework and consideration of the capacity of health services.

We all know that the impact of development on health services is profound, whether through increased demand that affects capacity as a result of an influx of properties in an area or as a result of unintended consequences of the development of other infrastructure and transport links. Amendment 105 seeks to make sure not only that there is a much clearer link between the NPF and the consequences of development for health outcomes, but that the NPF is more cognisant of the needs of our health services and the unintended consequences of development.

Amendment 106 is similar to amendment 105. The intention is to make sure that the health needs of the population are specifically considered when the NPF is drawn up so that there is a much clearer link between proposed developments in the NPF and any unintended health consequences, depending on the health needs of the population. The impact of certain developments on air quality, for example, and the potential health effects on the population should be explicitly considered when the NPF is drafted.

The intention behind amendments 105 and 106 is connected to my earlier amendments on consultation of the chief medical officer and the chief executive of the NHS. I am sure that this is not the minister’s intention, but when we talk about consultation of lots of consultees being burdensome, we have to remember that a people-centred and rights-based approach to planning is better for everyone. If we are saying that it is problematic to set out in legislation that the chief medical officer must be consulted, we need to look at the way in which we are approaching the issue.

I do not believe that any of my amendments in this area would be burdensome. It is extremely important that we take a rights-based approach to planning, whereby people know that they can be consulted. That does not exclude others from being involved. Time and again during our evidence sessions, we heard about people who felt that their views had not been taken into account. That is why I have proposed that access panels be consulted as well as community councils. People with disabilities and older people feel that their needs are not being taken into account. Such considerations should not be left to discretion or to chance. That is why a belt-and-braces approach is required.

Kenneth Gibson

Amendments 170 and 116D seek to ensure that, when the principal purpose for which land in an area is used is considered, the needs of disabled people and older people are taken into account. The amendments seek to introduce a duty to provide information about the housing needs of older people and disabled people within the planning authority area. That would enable the Scottish ministers, in preparing or revising the national planning framework, to require planning authorities to assist the process by providing information about the housing needs of older people and disabled people in their planning authority areas.

My amendments would give the Scottish ministers, in preparing or revising the NPF, the power to direct one or more planning authorities to provide information about certain matters relating to an area that are specified in the direction, including, for example, the principal physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of the area.

Rhoda Grant

I will speak to amendments 217 and 116AA. Again, I am taking a belt-and-braces approach. I will not rehearse the arguments that I made earlier, which apply equally now. Both amendments refer to

“the desirability of allocating land for the purposes of resettlement”,

which would become one of the matters to which reference would have to be made in providing information to assist the preparation of the NPF. Providing for consideration of

“the desirability of allocating land for the purposes of resettlement”

is a practical step that might be helpful on the way to achieving resettlement. Amendments 217 and 116AA would provide ministers with the power to require information to be provided on that desirability, which I hope they would find helpful.

Claudia Beamish

Amendment 218 seeks to enhance recognition of the importance of renewable energy in our future planning decisions by enabling the Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority—or planning authorities—to provide information on the

“particular land available for the development and use of facilities for renewable sources of energy”

to contribute to our supplies. That information would, in my view, assist ministers in preparing and reviewing the NPF.

Amendment 218 seeks to add that specific reference to renewables to the end of the list of the infrastructure matters that are set out in the bill, including

“communications, transport and drainage systems and systems for the supply of water and energy”.

Although I appreciate that the term “energy” is already mentioned in that list, my amendment emphasises the fact that renewables need a joined-up Government approach and that it is vital that we succeed in shifting to a zero-carbon economy. Adding renewable energy to the list of specifications that need to be taken into account before preparing the NPF would bolster that imperative, give confidence to the sector and point us in the appropriate direction.

Amendment 116AE would have the same effect and was lodged as a contingency measure.

Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)

Amendments 116L and 116M are driven by work with Community Land Scotland and my experience as an islands MSP, recognising the needs of people in rural Scotland and the need for planners to understand that some communities must either develop or die. I hope that my proposal is seen as a practical and proportionate way of recognising those facts.

Amendment 116L, which relates to the Scottish Government’s amendment 116 on the national planning framework, seeks to require planning authorities to provide information on rural areas that have experienced substantial population decline when they are directed by ministers to do so, to inform the preparation of the national planning framework. That would effectively establish rural depopulation as a principle for the NPF to address. I understand the minister’s point about duplication of effort, but I hope that he can reassure me that he will use the new powers to establish in the NPF the principle that planning decisions should specifically have regard to the need to repopulate rural Scotland.

Amendment 116M seeks to give ministers powers, when they make regulations, to define what constitutes a rural area and substantial decline.

Monica Lennon

Amendment 219 relates to the provision of advice on compatibility with statutory climate change targets before the publication of the draft NPF. We recognise that—as it does with health—the planning system has a huge part to play in protecting the environment and, where possible, in limiting our negative impacts on the planet. I believe that we must give both ministers and planners a tool to make that possible and that such a tool is offered through amendment 219. Parliament recognises that the statutory climate change targets are an important indicator of our work to protect against climate change, and amendment 219 would allow ministers to understand the impact that the NPF will have on those targets and on our work to meet them.

The Convener

Before I invite the minister to respond, I should say that, once he has stopped speaking, that will be the end of the debate on this particular sub-group of amendments. We will then move on to the next sub-group, so please do not seek to ask any questions after his speech. If members want to intervene on the minister—and if the minister wants to take your intervention—that is fine.

11:45

Kevin Stewart

All the amendments in the sub-group seek to add specific items to the information that can be sought by ministers to inform the national planning framework. In considering the amendments, I am keen to ensure that the bill does not duplicate existing requirements and avoids becoming overly prescriptive.

I am also conscious that, in some cases, similar amendments have been proposed for local development plans. I ask the committee to bear in mind the fact that some issues might be more appropriate for more detailed, local-level planning and that there will be an opportunity to consider the matter further in discussing a later group of amendments.

Andy Wightman’s amendments 187 and 116G would require the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to local authorities on his proposed new section 3A(3A) of the 1997 act, on the consideration of impacts relating to gender. I have already highlighted the existing public sector equality duty, which applies to ministers and local authorities. The Equality and Human Rights Commission issues technical guidance on that duty, and I do not think that we should seek to cut across or duplicate those responsibilities.

I agree with Claire Baker’s amendments 71 and 116K. The Government wants to see culture at the heart of policy making, and the amendments could reinforce the importance of cultural facilities and opportunities through good place making and the very positive contribution that they make to life in Scotland. The proposal is proportionate and in the right place, and I am happy to support it.

I have no objection to Graham Simpson’s amendments 72 and 116Z—I said “zee” there, which was very American; I meant “zed”. Our built heritage is addressed in the national planning framework as a matter of course, and it could be argued that it is covered under the broader heading of “Environment”. However, I agree that it is an important part of the quality, distinctiveness and identity of many of our places, and it would be useful to highlight it as a matter for authorities to consider as part of their plans.

Amendment 32, which is also in the name of Graham Simpson, would add

“the housing needs of the population in an area”

to the list of information that authorities can be asked to provide to inform the NPF. Amendments 33 and 116AD, which have also been lodged by Graham Simpson, would add

“the capacity of education services”

to the same list. In my view, the wording of my amendment 116 is preferable to both proposals. With regard to housing, planning terminology usually equates need only with affordable housing, and the requirement could also arise from outwith an area instead of being specific to the population within an area, as is suggested in Mr Simpson’s amendment. My amendment includes housing in the list of information that is required for the NPF, but it goes beyond need to encompass demand by referring to

“the availability of land in the area for housing”

and

“the availability of, and requirements for, housing in the area”.

In addition, amendment 116 reflects education as a type of infrastructure and focuses on facilities to align that with development and land use instead of taking the broader approach that is taken in amendment 33. Although, in principle, I support Graham Simpson’s amendments on housing and education, I ask him not to move them, as the matters in question have been addressed in amendment 116.

I agree with the aims of Monica Lennon’s amendments 105, 116AB, 106 and 116AC. It is important that we understand and address the impacts of development on people’s health and wellbeing, and development planning should take into account the capacity of health services. I am content to support amendments 105 and 116AB, although I suggest that they would sit more naturally in the list of infrastructure types in proposed new section 3AG(2)(d) of the 1997 act as set out in amendment 116. Perhaps I can discuss the matter with Ms Lennon before stage 3.

That said, I find it difficult to support the breadth of amendment 106. Planning authorities cannot be expected to explore fully all the health needs of the populations of their areas. I recognise that planning and place can make a big difference to people’s health and wellbeing by supporting them to be more active and to interact with others and by preventing developments that could have significant effects or by mitigating their impacts to an acceptable level. Suitable housing and employment are important to health, too.

However, some health issues might have nothing at all to do with development planning or land use. Examples that immediately spring to mind are smoking, alcohol-related diseases and contraception, which are nothing to do with land use. We need to be careful that we do not expect the planning system to address all of society’s issues. I would prefer authorities to have a clearer understanding of health infrastructure and its relationship with future development, as will be the case if the committee supports amendment 105.

Although I do not think that the housing needs of specific groups should be highlighted at the top level of the national planning framework, I am happy to accept Kenneth Gibson’s amendments 170 and 116D, which would ensure that local authorities might be asked to provide information on the housing needs of older and disabled people.

Alasdair Allan’s amendments to address rural depopulation are more appropriate than Rhoda Grant’s amendments. I understand that both members have been inspired by calls from Community Land Scotland for planning to address the issue. I have a lot of sympathy for those who criticise our planning system as it applies to rural areas—I have said that previously, and I reiterate it. Last Friday, I took part in a rural planning summit to hear the views of folk who feel that we could do more on that front. I am concerned that, too often, communities are unable to sustain vital local services or meet their own housing needs partly—if not wholly—as a result of overly restrictive planning policy. In some cases, environmental considerations are put ahead of local people’s needs, although both are important and both need to be considered in national strategic and local development planning. Communities recognise the value of their environment, which makes a major contribution to their quality of life and to the tourism that is often important to local economies in rural areas. However, their quality of life will suffer if we cannot deliver the homes and facilities that they need, or if we are unable to sustain whole communities in the long term as a result of overly restrictive rural planning policies.

I am particularly struck by the positive approach to development that is taken by communities in remote parts of Scotland and by the work of Community Land Scotland to support and empower communities to take ownership of the future of their own places. Those initiatives are forerunners of a more positive planning system that will give people the right to plan their own places. I agree that the national planning framework has an important role to play in tackling rural depopulation. When we begin the review of the national planning framework, after the bill is passed, I will want to open a fuller debate on how we can sustain and grow rural communities, including by repopulating areas. A reference to that issue in the bill will ensure that such a debate takes place. I am sympathetic to all the amendments on the subject, but I am concerned that Rhoda Grant’s go too far in setting out detailed policy in the bill, so I ask her not to move the amendments, and I recommend that the committee support Alasdair Allan’s amendments, instead.

Claudia Beamish’s amendments 218 and 116AE would provide that, when ministers directed planning authorities to provide information on energy to inform the national planning framework, that information could mention particular land that was available for renewable energy developments. Planning has an important role to play in providing a steer on where that type of development should and should not take place. NPF3 explores Scotland as a low-carbon place, and technologies that have continued to emerge even since 2014 will be considered in NPF4. It is arguable that proposed new section 3AG of the 1997 act already covers all types of energy. However, given the importance of renewable energy to climate change and the additional spatial focus that the amendments would bring, I am happy to support the proposal.

I turn finally to Monica Lennon’s amendments 219 and 116N. The national planning framework has an important role to play in helping us to meet our climate change targets. Adapting to the impacts of climate change is also a key priority for a long-term spatial strategy. NPF3 introduced many proposals that will help us to reduce emissions, such as those for low-carbon energy generation and sustainable transport. Although the national planning framework must take into account many different and, often, competing policy objectives, it should, as a whole, have a positive impact on climate change. Any consultation on a national planning framework would naturally include a debate about its impact on climate change. That would also be fully assessed as part of the strategic environmental assessment of the NPF under the existing statutory requirements.

Once again, the amendments would simply duplicate existing statutory requirements. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 states:

“A public body must, in exercising its functions, act ... in the way best calculated to contribute to the delivery of the targets”

that are set out in the act, and the UK Committee on Climate Change is required to give advice on that duty. I do not consider that it would be helpful or necessary to restate that requirement in a slightly different way relating specifically to the national planning framework. I also have concerns about the additional resources that would be involved in formally seeking advice from the relevant body specifically on that matter in addition to the existing duties. Has Monica Lennon consulted the Committee on Climate Change on whether it considers that such an additional duty would be helpful?

I do not believe that amendments 219 and 116N would add value to the planning system, so I ask Monica Lennon not to move them.

The Convener

We move to the debate on the fourth sub-group. I ask Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 38 and the other amendments in the group.

Graham Simpson

There was a lot of discussion in the committee on whether MSPs should be able to amend the national planning framework, and the committee’s view is that we should have that ability. As things stand, however, no parliamentary procedure would allow that. The belt-and-braces approach would be to introduce a national planning framework bill, which is what amendment 38 proposes. I fully accept that that would be unusual and difficult, and for that reason I will not move the amendment. Nevertheless, I wanted to get the matter on the table, and that was the reasoning behind the amendment.

I have lodged amendment 39 as an alternative. It does not go quite as far as I would like to go, but it seeks to introduce a greater level of scrutiny and the ability for MSPs to have a say on the national planning framework.

The Government’s reluctance to accept the point is the reason why there are lots of amendments dealing with policy areas. MSPs have pushed back and have seen an opportunity to get policy matters into the bill. If the Government had taken a different approach, that might not have happened.

Amendment 6 proposes that the time limit for scrutiny of the NPF should be at least 120 days. I believe that, if we agree to amendment 39, that proposal would be negated. However, Andy Wightman has lodged a similar amendment, which I am minded to support.

Amendment 40 would introduce a simple annual report mechanism for the NPF. It does not say in any detail what the report should cover—that could probably be dealt with by regulations—but it provides that the annual report must be submitted at the end of the calendar year. I accept that the Government might think that providing an annual report would be too onerous, but I do not think that it would be. The Government is capable of doing that.

Amendment 116X would ensure that the Scottish ministers

“may not bring into effect the National Planning Framework until a draft of it has been approved by resolution of the Parliament”.

The amendment supports consideration of the NPF under the super-affirmative procedure, which goes back to what I said earlier about the ability of MSPs to influence the NPF.

Amendment 116Y is similar in that it calls for an annual report mechanism for the NPF.

I have made my points about scrutiny and the ability of MSPs to have a say in and to influence the NPF. I do not think that the Government is going far enough, and it may wish to reflect on that before stage 3.

12:00

The Convener

Andy Wightman will speak to amendment 39A and other amendments in the group.

Andy Wightman

This is an important group of amendments, as has been alluded to by Graham Simpson. The bill proposes that the national planning framework becomes part of the development plan for an area, alongside the local development plan. That is new; it has not been the case to date. It is an important reform that I agree with and—as I recollect—that the committee agrees with.

Unlike the local development plan, the national planning framework has no democratic underpinning. It is a plan of ministers and, although Parliament is consulted on it, Parliament has no role in improving the plan. Given that we have a spatial planning system that is based on the development of proposals, ideas and debate to a point at which a democratically elected body adopts or agrees the plan, similar procedures have to be put in place with regard to the national planning framework if the bill is to propose—and I agree with the proposal—that the NPF becomes part of the development plan.

If those arrangements are not put in place, it is important to highlight that there would be nothing to stop a minority Government of a party that, for example, wished to implement fracking, making that part of the national planning framework. Such a proposal in the NPF might be opposed by the Parliament and yet become part of the development plan, probably against the wishes of most local authorities and most of the population. In a democratic planning system, that is wrong. I am therefore pleased that the Government has accepted the key recommendation at stage 1 to rectify that and make the national planning framework subject to a resolution of the Parliament.

Amendment 39, in the name of Graham Simpson, provides an elegant legislative solution, by way of the now established, although not formal, mechanism of the super-affirmative procedure. I prefer the simplicity and elegance of that, and its increasing familiarity in Parliament, to the rather more long-winded drafting of amendment 116.

I disagree with the proposition in amendment 38. Graham Simpson has already indicated that he will not move that amendment, so I will say nothing more on that.

My amendments 39A and 39B would extend the period of parliamentary scrutiny of a draft national planning framework to no more than 120 days. The committee recommended at stage 1 that there should be no statutory limits for Parliament. I think that ministers require and deserve some certainty in their own timetabling. The present limit of 60 days is probably too short—it could be done in 60 days only if it were a modest national planning framework—but anything up to 120 days would be allowed by amendments 39A and 39B. That does not mean that Parliament would necessarily use the whole 120 days.

Amendment 40 requires annual reports on the national planning framework. My view is that that is unnecessary and disproportionate, it is not a good use of the Scottish ministers’ resources and I will not support it.

Kevin Stewart

I am delighted that Mr Simpson will not be moving amendment 38 to introduce the NPF as a bill for an act of Parliament. We tried to work out how that could be done and it would be extremely difficult. We have all taken the opportunity at times to use such probing amendments and I am glad that Mr Simpson has considered that amendment 38 is perhaps one probing amendment too far.

Amendments 39 and 116X, also in the name of Mr Simpson, separately propose that the Scottish Parliament approves the draft NPF. Amendment 116 in my name also addresses the approval of the NPF by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. That is a significant change that I am proposing in direct response to the committee’s stage 1 report.

I have other concerns about Mr Simpson’s proposed procedures. Seeking representations alongside the period for parliamentary scrutiny is unnecessary, as a draft will already have been subjected to full public consultation and extensive engagement, prior to being laid in the Parliament. That comes under step 2 in amendment 116. I am not sure why the requirements relating to the non-disclosure of representations would be necessary in the context of the general data protection regulations, or how they would interact with that wider legislation and the information commissioner’s responsibilities.

Amendment 154 removes a reference to amending the NPF that was to be placed in section 3D of the 1997 act, which is to be repealed by the provisions in amendment 115, on the purpose of planning.

I turn to amendment 41, which is in the name of Graham Simpson. My amendment 116 sets out detailed proposals for considering substantial and minor amendments to the national planning framework. My amendment also provides clarity on consultation and reporting requirements for NPF amendments, which reflects the commitment that I made at stage 1. As a result, I do not support amendment 41 and I ask Graham Simpson not to move it.

I do not support amendment 116H, which is in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. We have proposed a radical change to the NPF by giving the Scottish Parliament the power to approve the proposed framework before it can be adopted. That is a significant shift in the balance of power and responsibility for the NPF, which I hope that the committee welcomes.

Amendment 116H would not require the Parliament to state why it considers that the NPF should be amended or in what way. I assume that Mr Cole-Hamilton intends the resolution to set that out, but the NPF is a statement of the Scottish ministers’ policies and priorities for the development and use of land. The Parliament’s role should be to scrutinise Government policies, which includes suggesting changes when appropriate, but it should not be able to instruct ministers to amend the NPF in particular ways.

12:15

Alex Cole-Hamilton

The purpose of amendment 185 is to recognise that things come up and sometimes the planning cycle does not give ground or show flexibility when there is a shock to the system that requires a massive change to housing policy. We need a mechanism for Parliament to trigger that.

Kevin Stewart

As I have already stated, we have changed the way in which we are doing these things. Parliament has a lot of ways of dealing with shocks to the system and we will have to become adaptable in many areas, what with the chaos that might come from Brexit.

My concerns about Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendment are also practical. Making an amendment to the NPF will be a significant undertaking, given the rigorous process that we are now proposing, and it would be difficult to ensure that the time and resources required to follow the Parliament’s instruction to amend the NPF would be available at any given time.

I ask the committee to agree amendments 128 and 154 in addition to amendment 116, which sets a clear and proportionate approach for amending the NPF. I ask the committee to reject amendments 41 and 116H.

Graham Simpson

Amendment 31 agreed to.

Amendment 211 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 211 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 211 agreed to.

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 83, as amended, disagreed to.

Amendment 160 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 160 agreed to.

Amendment 168 moved—[Kenneth Gibson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 168 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the vote is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 168 agreed to.

Amendment 215 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 215 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the vote is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 215 disagreed to.

Amendment 212 not moved.

Amendment 213 not moved.

Amendment 214 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Amendment 186 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 186 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the vote is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 186 agreed to.

The question is, that amendment 187 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the vote is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 187 agreed to.

Amendment 71 moved—[Claire Baker]—and agreed to.

Amendment 72 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the vote is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 217 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 217 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 217 agreed to.

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116A agreed to.

Amendment 116O moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116O be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116O agreed to.

Amendment 116P moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116P be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116G be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116N be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116N agreed to.

Amendment 116X moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

I remind members that if amendment 116X is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 116C and 116I.

The question is, that amendment 116X be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116X agreed to.

Amendment 116Y moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116Y be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116Y disagreed to.

Amendment 116J moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116J be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116J agreed to.

Amendment 116K moved—[Claire Baker]—and agreed to.

Amendment 116Z moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 116L moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 116AA moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116AA be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116AA agreed to.

Amendment 116AB moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 116AC moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116AC be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116AC agreed to.

Amendment 116AD moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116AD be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116AD agreed to.

Amendment 116D moved—[Kenneth Gibson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 116AE moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Amendment 116M moved—[Dr Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

12:45

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 116, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Against

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 116, as amended, disagreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

The Convener

That is a perfect example of the committee completely ignoring the convener’s advice and getting through the questions.

12:49 Meeting suspended.

12:51 On resuming—

The Convener

We will delay taking item 7 until next week. The committee will now go into private session.

12:51 Meeting continued in private until 12:58.

12 September 2018

Second meeting on amendments

Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting 19 September 2018:

Second Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2

Second Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2

Second meeting on amendments transcript

The Convener

This is day 2 of stage 2 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, and his accompanying officials. A number of MSPs who are not committee members but who have lodged amendments to the bill will be in attendance and are very welcome.

After section 1

The Convener

Amendment 171, in the name of Andy Wightman, is in a group on its own.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

In evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee, Julie Procter from Greenspace Scotland said:

“At one point, local authorities were required to produce open-space strategies, so many local authorities have them, but they are coming up for renewal. At the moment, the wording is that they ‘should’ have them, so there is something to be done there, with the committee’s scrutiny of the Planning (Scotland) Bill, to ensure that local authorities have an open-space strategy. It is not just about parks; it is about a green network strategy that takes a green infrastructure perspective.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 23 May 2018; c 37.]

Scottish planning advice note 65, which deals with planning and open space, was published in 2008, over a decade ago. It is a good document that, in accordance with the provisions of the bill, will be incorporated into the national planning framework and become part of the development plan. Key elements in PAN 65 are a strategic vision and framework, an audit of open space, an assessment of current and future requirements and a strategic statement. Only nine of Scotland’s local authorities have an open-space strategy that is current. Of the remaining 23, 12 are reviewing or revising strategies and most of the other 11 have some sort of alternative in place, including commitments in their local development plans.

Therefore, that element of Scottish planning policy is now well established, understood and implemented. My amendment 171 would build on the good work that has been undertaken to date across Scotland by making such open-space strategies a statutory requirement for all planning authorities, with the exception of national park authorities—in other words, just for all of Scotland’s 32 local authorities. That modest reform is designed to elevate current best practice in Scottish planning policy to the level of a statutory requirement to ensure that the good work that has been carried out to date continues.

I move amendment 171.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

The Government recognises the value of open space and that being able to access high-quality green space can improve people’s health, wellbeing and confidence. We introduced a national indicator on improving access to local green space in 2016.

However, I do not believe that it is necessary to impose on authorities duties about preparing open-space strategies. The most recent “State of Scotland’s Greenspace Report” confirms:

“All Councils have some recognised form of spatial plan relating to greenspace and open space.”

That is without there being a statutory duty on local authorities.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Andy Wightman said that most Scottish councils do not have an up-to-date open-space plan. Would amendment 171 not help to rectify that?

Kevin Stewart

As I said, all councils have some recognised form of spatial plan that relates to green space and open space.

The audit that would be required by amendment 171 would be very detailed and would place a financial burden on authorities. The Scottish Government works with local authorities in various ways to achieve our shared priorities. Statutory duties are not always the most appropriate mechanism.

I have a number of concerns about the wording of amendment 171. It defines the terms “open space”, “green networks” and “green infrastructure”. The Scottish Government has already established definitions for those terms in Scottish planning policy, which was subject to extensive consultation. Amendment 171 defines some of those terms differently, and it is not clear why they are different or whether the proposed changes have been subject to a similar level of engagement. Keeping such definitions in national policy rather than in legislation allows them to evolve to reflect emerging policy. For example, the national indicator on access to local green space now also looks at blue space, such as beaches and walkways beside rivers or canals. We might want to incorporate those other types of outdoor spaces that people can enjoy when we review national planning policy.

Open space should be an integral part of a development plan spatial strategy, and authorities should choose whether and when a separate document is needed. I ask the committee to reject amendment 171.

Andy Wightman

The minister is correct in saying that all authorities have some sort of open-space plan in the loosest sense, and that many of them are integrated into local development plans. I agree with the minister that we should not impose statutory duties that are not strictly required.

However, given the good work that has been done to date, it should not be overly onerous on planning authorities to prepare an open-space strategy. I take the minister’s remarks regarding language, particularly on definitions, and I would be happy to consider further amendments at stage 3 that would perhaps simplify the statutory requirements and provide more flexibility. Such amendments would incorporate the duty in tandem with guidance that would allow the duty to be implemented in a more flexible way.

Kevin Stewart

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

As we are aware, the challenges that we face given our demographics and Scotland’s ageing population are significant. The population of our older individuals will increase dramatically between 2012 and 2038—some projections have predicted a 59 per cent increase in the over-65 age group. Those factors underline the need to invest in housing for older people; investment in such housing will save resources that would otherwise be spent on health and social care. In tackling the issue, we also need to consider loneliness and isolation, which are becoming even more profound in our ageing population.

Addressing those issues will require strategic action through the national planning framework, as well as through the local development plans and local place plans. Therefore, I call on the Scottish Government and committee members to agree to amendment 188, which addresses the needs of older people. Amendment 188 would place a duty on Scottish ministers to lay a report before the Scottish Parliament every two years on the housing needs of older people and the progress that has been made towards meeting those needs.

I move amendment 188.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

My amendments—188A to 188L—would simply add the words “and disabled people” throughout amendment 188, wherever older people are mentioned. I support amendment 188, which is proportionate, given the rising number of older people and people with disabilities in our society and their specific needs.

It is important that we put the duty in primary legislation to ensure that older people and disabled people are fully considered. The amendments are consistent with what the committee agreed in relation to the national planning framework.

I move amendment 188A.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

I understand the reasoning behind the amendments and I have some sympathy with the idea of focusing on the needs of disabled people. I speak as the former deputy convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on disability. However, considering the issue from the perspective of planning law, someone from another group might argue that they had particular needs that deserved particular treatment that should be singled out in legislation. Given societal changes, what about the position of veterans? What about the position of lone parents who need particular accommodation if they have custody residence orders in respect of their children? Given societal changes, what about the position of fathers who do not have residence rights in respect of their children, but have contact rights and therefore need appropriate accommodation in order to get overnight access? Many fathers cannot get such access because they do not have suitable accommodation.

If one looks across the piece, there are many different needs in relation to the planning system, particularly housing needs. However, people’s expectation is that they will be treated equally under planning law. That is why I have concerns about the amendments.

10:00

Kevin Stewart

As I said last week with regard to similar amendments, support for the housing needs of older and disabled people is a laudable aim. I have no objection whatsoever to reporting on progress, where the requirements are flexible and would provide robust, meaningful and actionable evidence. As I have explained, the Scottish Government maintains an online action programme for national planning framework 3, which is updated at least once a year. However, I have also made it clear that I do not believe that it is proportionate to single out housing for older people and disabled people in this way in primary legislation, separately from other housing needs, as Ms Ewing mentioned.

The planning system on its own cannot ensure that particular types of housing are delivered. Housing services and market conditions—to name but two—also have a significant part to play. The planning system certainly cannot ensure that houses are adapted for older people or disabled people, since adaptations often do not require planning permission. Indeed, planning for, funding and implementing adaptations is within the remit of health and social care partnerships, working with housing authorities, and not planning authorities.

That point is critical, and I ask the committee to bear in mind the scope of planning and its limitations. Although planning can estimate future needs for particular types of homes, it cannot assess the specific needs of individuals or households and decide on the type of housing that is required to meet their needs, or ensure that properties are allocated to those who will need them. Local housing strategies are much better placed to play a direct influencing role in that regard.

As well as going beyond the scope of planning, preparing the report that is suggested in amendment 188 would be an onerous task and it is not clear what it would actually achieve. It would probably be possible to compile a report detailing new-build completions that are specifically for older people, or houses that are wheelchair accessible, but it would not be possible to evaluate fully how well those homes meet the needs of their occupants in a meaningful way at a national level.

We cannot simply draw from local information either. Based on research that we have undertaken recently, I have concerns about how locally derived information from housing land audits could be aggregated into a robust evidence-based document at national level. The frequency of reporting that would be required is also disproportionate, given that, on average, homes take around 18 months from planning to completion.

I appreciate that the amendments are well intentioned, but they are fraught with technical difficulty and complexity, and they go beyond the scope of the planning system. In any case, rather than creating an unwieldy and resource-intensive monitoring system, I believe that time would be better used in supporting the delivery of housing on the ground. I ask Mr Stewart not to press amendment 188 and I ask Mr Gibson not to press amendments 188A to 188L.

Alexander Stewart

I note your comments, minister, but I am surprised and also a little distressed that you have gone into such detail to indicate that you do not believe that what I am proposing is appropriate and that you feel that it would be a burden.

Kevin Stewart

I have not said that doing that kind of work is not appropriate. It just does not fit in with planning, and I believe that what is asked for in the amendment is disproportionate.

Alexander Stewart

As I said, I note those comments, but I do not believe that what I propose is disproportionate. It is important that we indicate our support for our growing ageing population, and the minister has covered that in indicating that there would be a requirement to ensure that every individual who has a care plan and a package understands that their carers’ organisations support them and understand their needs and requirements in housing. That has to be part of the care package, so I do not believe that it would be onerous to ensure that we have some kind of review and a statutory indication of what would and could take place.

It is vital that we think long and hard about what we are trying to achieve, so I am disappointed that the minister has indicated—

Kevin Stewart

I agree with many of the points that Mr Stewart is making on getting the approach right for people across the country in terms of housing and care needs. However, my difficulty is how all of that fits in with the planning system. As I have outlined, what Mr Stewart proposes would be extremely onerous and would add to the burden on not only authorities but officials here.

What Mr Stewart is trying to achieve is laudable, but I think that it would be much better done through housing and care services rather than through planning legislation.

Alexander Stewart

The minister has made his points, but I am still adamant that I believe—

Graham Simpson

Alexander Stewart makes a good point, which Mr Gibson also made. This is not a disproportionate set of amendments. We should surely be planning for older people, and doing so is surely part of the planning system. Do you agree, Mr Stewart?

Alexander Stewart

I completely concur. We should be planning for older people. Things have not worked well in some parts of the country, and there are crises in some local authority areas because we have not planned for older people. If my proposal is included in the bill, that would give us the chance to plan properly and ensure that we can secure residences for people who are older or who have disabilities. It is only right that we should attempt to do that on their behalf, and we have the opportunity in this bill to achieve that.

Kenneth Gibson

I agree with what Alexander Stewart has said. I think that I understand the minister’s perspective, but what should be happening is not happening. The point of Mr Stewart’s amendment 188 is to do what we did last week and take a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that older people and people with disabilities are considered. There is a difference between people in those groups and people in the groups that Annabelle Ewing mentioned, because the people whom she talked about do not necessarily need a house to be designed for them. We are talking about older people, people who are disabled and, perhaps, people with dementia issues; we are talking about houses that are built with adaptations for those people, rather than houses that have to have adaptations added to them.

Mr Stewart’s amendment is fairly measured.

Kevin Stewart

One of the key things in getting things right for older and disabled people involves making changes to local housing strategy guidance, which the Government is embarking on at this moment. I hope to have that report back in December.

I understand exactly where folks are coming from in some regards, but this is not a matter for the planning system. We know that the vast bulk of people who develop illness or who grow infirm through age want to stay in the homes that they have been living in. That requires the adaptation of existing homes, which, as I have mentioned, would not be captured by the bill. I can report back on the planning aspects of such homes, but I cannot force people to build the homes; I think that that is the intention of some of the things that Mr Stewart and Mr Gibson have talked about.

The Convener

The Convener

Does any member object to our holding a single vote on amendments 188B to 188L? No. The question is, that amendments 188B to 188L be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendments 188B to 188L agreed to.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 188, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 188, as amended, agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 220, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is in a group on its own.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Good morning, convener, minister and colleagues. Amendment 220 seeks to set up a low-carbon infrastructure commission that would be designed to bring much-needed long-term focus on low-carbon infrastructure into the planning system. The functions of the commission would be to

“identify low carbon infrastructure needs and priorities”;

to “make recommendations” on how to address those priorities; to issue

“climate change and low carbon energy efficiency”

guidance to planning authorities that the authorities “must have regard to”; and to

“make recommendations in the preparation of other plans and reports”.

If such a commission were to go ahead, Scottish ministers would have the flexibility to introduce

“further provision about the governance and membership of the Commission”,

and regulations would have to be introduced within a year of the act’s coming into force.

I appreciate that this is a complex idea. I have put it all into one amendment for reasons of time, because it is a probing amendment. I want to get a feel from the committee and others, including the minister, for whether there is an appetite to go forward with such a commission. I will explain a little more.

The commission would also prepare and publish

“a national infrastructure needs assessment”,

or NINA, to analyse long-term needs and make recommendations for implementation. It would consult persons who are listed in the amendment, and the Scottish ministers would have to

“have regard to the national infrastructure needs assessment”

when

“preparing the National Planning Framework”.

In my view, there needs to be a more joined-up approach between the Scottish Government’s climate change ambitions and policies, its capital spending commitments and the planning system. High-carbon projects threaten to lock us into a high-carbon future that is incompatible with our climate change efforts. The climate change efforts and national infrastructure are vital pieces of the puzzle in meeting our ambitions.

My aim is that the proposed commission would take the development of infrastructure out of the short-term cycles of Government and allow ministers to make informed decisions about the country’s future infrastructure requirements, in line with our zero-carbon future. Failing to make public investments with that agenda in mind would leave a legacy of infrastructure that would be more expensive to adapt in the future through retrofitting.

I note from recent evidence that was given to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee by the Scottish Parliament information centre that only 29 per cent of our large infrastructure projects at the moment are low carbon.

The establishment of the commission was recommended by the low-carbon infrastructure task force, so I have not just plucked it out of the air. It is also supported by WWF Scotland, which has given me support. It is in line with the Government’s existing budget commitment to increase low-carbon infrastructure.

Graham Simpson

A number of parties have had similar ideas about setting up various types of infrastructure commissions or bodies. However, this is a planning bill, which it seems to me is not the place to do that, although it might be a good idea. I presume that it would cost a lot of money to set up; I do not know whether you have worked out any figures. You said earlier that amendment 220 is a probing amendment. I guess from that that you do not intend to move it. We are here to agree to or to reject amendments, so do you agree that the bill is not the place for your amendment?

10:15

Claudia Beamish

Part of the purpose of stage 2 is to clarify whether amendments are needed and to highlight whether there is a serious issue—which, in my view, there is. As I said, only 29 per cent of our large infrastructure projects are low carbon and, as I understand it, infrastructure projects are part of the national planning framework. I appreciate that there are other aspects to the issue, but the question that I would float is this: if we do not set up a commission through the bill, where should we do it?

Amendment 220 is a probing amendment, but a number of respondents highlighted their concern that the bill does not focus enough on low carbon, which is an important issue. I ask the minister to clarify how the intention behind amendment 220 could be enacted if it cannot be done in the bill. The argument is that planning is only part of the puzzle. I stress that the commission would not replace any regulator but would give independent advice.

Annabelle Ewing

I have concerns about the costs of creating yet another body. I do not know whether Claudia Beamish has considered what the costs would be. Spending money on creating a commission would mean that there would be less money to spend on something else. That is the way of life.

Another important issue that has not been raised yet is accountability. Where would the commission sit in relation to the role of democratically elected councillors in local authorities?

Claudia Beamish

If there is an appetite for creating the commission through the bill, I will look more carefully into costs, but I have not yet looked at that in any detail.

Can you remind me of your second point?

Annabelle Ewing

It was about accountability and remembering the role of democratically elected local councillors.

Claudia Beamish

I highly respect the role of democratically elected councillors. It would be for ministers to set guidance and for local authorities to then consider that guidance in the context of their decision making. I hope that local authorities would look at low carbon in a more focused way.

There would also be a broader set of benefits in relation to energy efficiency, jobs and tackling fuel poverty, as well as the benefits to other portfolios—for example, national health service savings from improved air quality through having more appropriate low-carbon infrastructure and through active travel routes.

I am very interested to hear what the minister and other members have to say.

I move amendment 220.

Andy Wightman

I thank Claudia Beamish for lodging amendment 220. I have no disagreement with the policy intention behind it; in fact, it is quite critical that somebody undertake that task. For example, recent legislation set up the Scottish Land Commission, which has been doing valuable work that cuts across electoral cycles and enables useful consistency and depth in policy development. It is a good idea, as some people have suggested, to create a general infrastructure commission—low carbon or not—that would sort out some of the conundrums around the infrastructure development that we need.

However, I have some concerns with amendment 220, because the bill is about the planning process, reporting, ministerial accountability for the planning system and so on. I am not convinced that the bill is the place to legislate for new organisations. However, I am open to persuasion on how the functions that are identified in amendment 220 could more appropriately be incorporated in the bill. I am happy to speak to Claudia Beamish about that issue on an on-going basis.

For the bill to set up a new body would represent a departure from any planning legislation since 1947—more than 70 years. Planning legislation is designed to provide the framework of rules and processes around which planning authorities exercise their powers under planning law. To date, planning legislation has not been a place in which we have set up new commissions. I am not persuaded that the bill is the best place to set up a new commission, but I am open to further conversation.

Kevin Stewart

I recognise that infrastructure is a key issue in planning reform. The Scottish Government has been progressing a programme of work on the issue, which is focusing on improving practice rather than on introducing new statutory duties.

The idea of an infrastructure agency or working group was raised by the independent planning review panel in 2016. We considered the idea carefully, consulted on it and discussed it with stakeholders, so we know that there is some support for a new organisation to address infrastructure. Indeed, since then, there have been further requests for new commissions or agencies that cover different aspects of infrastructure.

However, that approach would not, in itself, achieve better alignment of planning with infrastructure. A new body to address infrastructure could add to the already complex landscape of interests. It could be costly and it would take time to set up. Even a small new public body could cost £1 million to £2 million per year. We do not need to create another organisation; instead, we need to focus on better co-ordination and communication with existing organisations.

Claudia Beamish

I am listening carefully to what you are saying, minister. How do you envisage a more robust assessment of planning development being made, if not through an independent commission, to ensure that we move in the direction of low carbon and do not have, in the future, to retrofit big projects?

Kevin Stewart

At its meeting last week, the committee agreed to an amendment from Monica Lennon that will ensure that climate change is fully addressed in the national planning framework. That is how the issue will be dealt with as we consider how we bring low carbon into play in every aspect of our daily lives. Beyond that, Parliament is considering the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, and I am sure that we will come up with innovative ideas as that bill progresses.

As part of our programme of planning reform, the Scottish Government has established an infrastructure delivery group that includes public and private infrastructure providers, which reflects the fact that many organisations have responsibility for infrastructure delivery.

Many opportunities could be missed if we are distracted by the process of setting up a new commission. Rather than do that, I am keen to ensure that the next national planning framework, aligned with Scottish Government infrastructure programmes, provides a stronger steer on future infrastructure requirements. I made that point to the committee last week; I know that there is support for improving that alignment. We can achieve much more by doing that than we would by passing responsibility for infrastructure to a separate new body.

Our programme for government commits to a new infrastructure mission, and the First Minister has appointed a Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity in order to highlight the importance of the issue. A commission whose advisory functions related primarily to planning authorities and development and use of land could cut across our wider initiatives.

Amendment 220 would also introduce a requirement for a national infrastructure needs assessment. Our infrastructure investment plan is how we co-ordinate infrastructure investment, and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity will, in due course, consider our approach to refreshing the 2015 plan. There is no need for a separate assessment to be undertaken.

Throughout our debates, I have emphasised the importance of planning having a stronger focus on delivery. There is clearly a need for development plans to be better informed by fuller evidence on infrastructure capacity and requirements. Our research has shown that there is a need to do that at regional rather than at national level. We proposed introducing infrastructure audits at regional level in our consultation. We intend to develop that further in practice as we move towards the next national planning framework.

I had also envisaged the matter as a key area for authorities to address in their strategic development reports, working with the Scottish Government, had the committee agreed to amendment 116. Nevertheless, I still want to see planning work more flexibly and effectively, with wider regional economic partnerships working with infrastructure providers to strengthen delivery. By aligning planning at that scale with city and growth deals, there is clearly an opportunity to underpin significant investment with a long-term land-use strategy. I am aware of the good work on that that is being done in the Glasgow city region, for example.

Amendment 220 is broadly defined, and it appears to extend well beyond low-carbon infrastructure. Infrastructure is complex, and we must bear it in mind that it is delivered by private sector organisations as well as by public bodies. Different approaches to needs assessments already exist, reflecting the varying programmes and priorities of infrastructure providers. The key is not to duplicate those approaches, but to better co-ordinate and align them with development planning.

Having taken into account all our on-going work to better align planning with infrastructure investment, I do not support amendment 220, in particular its requirement to establish a new national infrastructure commission. I urge Ms Beamish not to press her amendment.

Claudia Beamish

I make it clear that in view of the helpful discussions that we have had I will not press amendment 220. I am not saying that I will not consider it in discussion with others with whom I have worked and, possibly, the minister—although he has not made such an offer because he is not keen on the proposal—or that I will not consider bringing the issue back.

I do not agree with Andy Wightman’s comment that because something has not happened before, it cannot happen. There was no precedent for the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, but if we did not have such an act, we would be in more trouble than we are now. What he said is not an argument for not doing something.

The minister has given reassurance about better alignment and the national planning framework. It is obviously important that low-carbon issues are in that as an underpinning.

It looks like NINA will die a death—I am not sure. The minister has explained how there are a lot of other opportunities for assessment and that the private sector is also involved. I can push back on that one to some degree because the private sector should still be expected to assess how it will look at the infrastructure projects that it tenders for in terms of low carbon. That is important, even if there is not the additional layer that amendment 220 would have brought.

I am somewhat reassured. I will not go into any more detail, but there are a number of other points that have been made about city deals and other issues that are encouraging. However, a joined-up approach is absolutely vital for low carbon, which is why I lodged amendment 220, and I am glad that it has been highlighted and discussed.

Amendment 220, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2—Removal of requirement to prepare strategic development plans

10:30

The Convener

Amendment 42, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 85, 85A, 189, 221 and 46 to 50.

Andy Wightman

Section 2 of the bill repeals sections 4 to 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which relate to strategic development plans. The effect of section 2 of the bill would be to do away with strategic development planning in the planning system. My amendment 42 would delete section 2 and therefore have the effect of leaving the current system of strategic development planning in place unaltered. Amendments 46 to 50 are consequential amendments.

We have been undertaking strategic development planning in Scotland for more than 70 years, beginning with the Clyde valley regional plan of 1946. Pioneers of Scottish regional planning, including Patrick Geddes and Ian McHarg, were pioneers in this field. The committee’s stage 1 report concluded that the current approach to strategic planning should not be abolished

“unless a more robust mechanism is provided”.

At one of the events organised by the committee—I think that it was in Stirling—quite a large number of interested parties had workshops and discussions on the future of the planning system. I spoke to a member of Clydeplan—one of the strategic planning authorities in Scotland—who emphasised the importance of a statutory strategic plan that could, for example, embed policies on hydrology in one local authority that are designed to prevent flooding in another. The key ingredient is the statutory nature of the plan, which locks in the cross-authority work that is needed for effective spatial planning.

If we do not have effective spatial planning, the temptation is for the first authority to abandon its policies on hydrology because they are not policies that matter very much to it; they are policies that are designed to stop, prevent or mitigate flooding in a different planning authority—in this case, Glasgow.

A number of proposals have been made on how strategic planning could be carried on in future, building on the bill, and I welcome that. Indeed, the minister’s amendment 116 last week focused on voluntary working and securing regional outcomes through the national planning framework.

In my view, strategic planning is best undertaken by strategic planning partners rather than by central Government. I think that national planning is different from strategic planning and I think that strategic planning needs to be owned by the authorities that are bound by its outcomes.

In the stage 1 debate, it was acknowledged, agreed and recognised that there are mixed views on this topic. Since then, I have spoken further to interested parties and, broadly speaking, there is still that split, but a large number of organisations are sceptical about losing strategic planning and would rather we keep it unless we have robust, workable replacements in place. I am not convinced that we are at that stage yet. I am still open to persuasion that that stage could be reached by stage 3.

Amendment 85 incorporates the same statement on how a strategic development plan will take account of gender and of the impact on gender that I previously set out in the debate on section 1 on the national planning framework. Again, I welcome Monica Lennon’s amendment 85A, which more accurately reflects my intentions. I support Monica Lennon’s amendment 189. It provides the same new evidence report requirements as are provided in section 3(4) of the bill. I also support amendment 221.

I move amendment 42.

The Convener

Before I ask Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 85A, I point out that if amendment 48 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 155—which was debated with amendment 185 in the group on the national planning framework—because of a pre-emption.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I completely agree with Andy Wightman’s comments in relation to strategic development planning. I think that the committee report reflects our concerns and our scepticism. However, like Andy Wightman, I remain open-minded and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say.

Amendment 85A repeats the arguments that we made last week in relation to the national planning framework, although this, of course, is about strategic development plans, if we are going to retain them.

Some of the earlier points on provision of housing for older people and people with disabilities reinforce my argument that we should embed equality and human rights in the purpose of our planning. I hope that we can keep that under review. I know that there have been discussions with colleagues on that.

The reason why I lodged amendment 85A, which would supplement Andy Wightman’s amendment 85 by adding the term “equality”, is because we heard clear evidence from Engender and others that gender inequality is still not being actively considered in planning practice. We have big societal issues to deal with, and while they are not all for planning, there is a clear interrelationship between gender and place, the built environment and power, and the bill absolutely is the place to try to address that.

Under the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, we moved from structure plans to strategic development plans. Planning circular 2 of 2008 pointed out that the reason for establishing strategic development planning authorities was to have

“a common approach to matters that extend beyond an individual authority’s boundaries”,

such as housing markets, travel-to-work areas and hydrology, which is a good example.

On governance, the circular said that strategic development planning authorities

“should be serviced by a small dedicated team of officers.”

That sounds sensible. However, over the summer, from doing further research and speaking to Clydeplan and others, I have learned that there are only eight full-time chartered planners working across the four strategic development planning authorities. I am interested to hear what the minister thinks of that, but it sounds as if people have got the message from Government that it wants to run down the SDPAs and are already withdrawing resource. To me, it does not seem adequate that we have only eight full-time chartered planners for the four authorities covering Glasgow, Aberdeen, Tayside and the SESplan area.

My point is that, if we leave this to a voluntary code, given how pressured resources are in planning authorities, we might not have strategic planning at the cross-boundary level as we know it. [Interruption.]

I am happy to take an intervention from Annabelle Ewing.

Annabelle Ewing

I was trying to catch the convener’s eye, but I would be grateful if I could come in on two issues.

On amendment 85A, which adds the words “and equality” after “gender” in Andy Wightman’s amendment 85, as a lawyer by trade, I am always concerned that, as soon as we start singling out certain groups, we raise the question, which I alluded to in speaking on the previous group of amendments: whither other people? Surely everyone has, as a basic human right, the expectation of being treated equally under planning legislation. In any event, in terms of drafting, the minute that we start to subdivide a general term, whatever it might be, we risk excluding a series of scenarios and situations—even if that is not Monica Lennon’s intention. That is my concern about amendment 85A.

On the strategic development plans, I am a new member of the committee, so please excuse me if this is not correct, but I thought that one of the key goals of the bill was to simplify the planning system. It seems to me that we are in danger of going off in different directions and going from the status quo, which people apparently want to amend, to unleashing on the world something that we do not intend, which is a bill that is incredibly complicated.

I just make those two brief points. Thank you for taking the intervention.

Monica Lennon

I appreciate the points that Annabelle Ewing has made. I do not have the Official Report from last week’s meeting in front of me, but I think that the minister said that consideration is given to gender impact in everyday planning processes. There has been an equality impact assessment of the bill, but the problem is that Engender, which is a highly respected women’s organisation—it has just had its 25th anniversary and the First Minister spoke at an event for that in the Parliament’s garden lobby, so it is taken seriously—has said that the equality impact assessment for the bill is pretty useless when it comes to gender.

The minister committed to meet Engender, although I am not sure whether that meeting has taken place. It is important that the committee is reassured that planners and others who have a role in the planning system have the tools to consider gender and other protected characteristics properly. By putting gender, equality and human rights in the bill and in the purpose of planning and by embedding those at national planning framework level, SDP—if we are keeping them—level, local plan level and daily development management level, we will ensure that they are everyone’s business.

Doing so should not be complicated, and it is not about trying to prioritise one person’s needs over another’s. However, if we think about gender, we see that women make up more than half of the population in Scotland yet a plethora of academic research shows that the built environment is still largely being designed by men, for the benefit of men. It is not being done deliberately—I know that Graham Simpson was shuddering as I said that.

It is regrettable that, at present, only Andy Wightman and I support what has been proposed. I hope that, by the time we get to stage 3, Conservative and Scottish National Party members will have woken up to it.

Annabelle Ewing

Will the member take another brief intervention?

Monica Lennon

Yes.

Annabelle Ewing

I want to clarify that, on the issue of simplification, I was referring more to Monica Lennon’s second point, on the role of strategic development plans. I am in favour of everybody’s human rights, and human rights underpin the bill, of course—that is a given. I just remain a wee bit perplexed about why we are singling out the human rights of some but not others. I see dangers in that, just as a matter of basic drafting.

Monica Lennon

Again, it goes back to the purpose and why we plan. Members have lodged amendments that put the purpose of planning into the bill, and I am glad that the minister has moved some way towards that. We all have different views on what the purpose should be, and I have lodged a suite of amendments that seek to improve public health through planning, rather than making it worse, and to tackle inequality in our society through planning decisions.

I know that some members joined the committee only last week, but we have heard extensive evidence that planning decisions exacerbate inequality. We see that in the clustering of certain types of development, for example betting shops, in some communities. These ideas are well established and parliamentarians across the Parliament raise them routinely. In the bill, we have a big opportunity to embed those principles and to say what planning is for. We can then empower planners and other decision makers and make sure that they are their responsibility. It is not about saying that women are more important than men or that people with disabilities are more important than people without disabilities; it is about making sure that we are aware of all of these things and that, when we make planning decisions and set planning policy, we are not blind to the consequences. I will leave that point there.

Going back to strategic development plans, I note that Clydeplan, which covers the area where I live, has done some really important work. Cross-boundary working is really important and I do not think that we can leave it to chance, particularly as planning authorities’ resources are under so much pressure. Even during the life of the bill, we have seen staffing levels reduce to only eight planners across four strategic development plan authorities. The minister really must address those concerns.

Kevin Stewart

Before I move into the guts of all of this, I will reflect briefly on last week’s meeting in order to set the context for my comments today. We all want to deliver a stronger planning system for Scotland that works for everyone. The amendments that the committee makes to the bill could have a significant impact on the way that the planning system works, or does not work, in the future. Based on the amendments that were agreed to last week, I believe that there is a real danger that the original aims of planning reform will not be achieved. If we continue to load in more and more detailed requirements, we could end up with a system that works for no one, rather than one that works for everyone.

Our proposals included removing the bureaucracy of strategic development plans and the duplication of supplementary guidance in order to produce time and cost savings that could then be used more productively. If the committee chooses to retain those elements, there will be no savings to resource new ways of working, never mind the additional duties that members want to add. I ask the committee to be aware that changes that it makes to one part of the system will have wider consequences and to bear in mind the responsibility that we all have to make a system that is workable.

10:45

Although many of the new duties that the committee agreed to last week will fall to the Scottish Government and the Parliament, I ask members to bear in mind the particular risks around overloading local authorities with duties that they are unable to resource. If we continue to add numerous minor amendments to the bill, it will make the system much more complex and harder to run, adding significant time and costs.

I encourage all members not to move amendments unless they are confident that the amendments are deliverable. If the Scottish Government supports amendments in principle, I am happy to work with any and all members to ensure that they work in practice and without generating significant unintended consequences.

When I laid the bill before Parliament in December 2017, I was seeking to streamline the planning system. My commitment to removing procedures that do not add value has been strongly supported, not only by professional stakeholders, but by members of the public. We should not lose sight of the fact that many people consider the current system to be complicated, frustrating, time consuming and, in many cases, impenetrable.

I considered the committee’s comments about strategic planning in its stage 1 report and proposed a new duty on strategic planning in amendment 116. That amendment reflected the committee’s concerns about the loss of strategic planning. However, amendment 116 has now fallen. I may bring back amendments on the provisions on strategic planning reports at stage 3, to allow Parliament to consider the options together.

I know that the committee has heard calls for strategic development plans to be retained; the plans have some vocal supporters, including in particular some planning professionals who have been personally involved in planning at that scale. However, I am not convinced that there has been a balance between evidence and opinion on the topic.

I ask the committee to consider whether strategic development plans in their current form have a significant impact. From what has been said, it appears that most of the successes of strategic or regional planning were achieved decades ago—long before the current arrangements emerged. Strategic or regional planning used to have real influence and I am concerned that that is no longer the case. I have made it very clear that we want to improve and strengthen strategic planning, not to undermine it. Unfortunately, our efforts to improve flexibility and rationalise the system have been misinterpreted or misconstrued as a complete abolition of strategic planning. That has never been my intention.

Amendment 42, in the name of Mr Wightman, seeks to retain strategic development plans in their current form. If the committee supports amendment 42, the development plan would have three tiers in the future: the NPF, SDPs and LDPs. Rather than streamlining the system, it would add complexity to the process and mean that we miss significant opportunities for more collaborative working. There would be no impetus for strategic planners to get involved in the new opportunities that are emerging at the regional scale. I doubt that the pace of change in investment arising from city deals can be informed by strategic planning if planners continue to operate within a rigid development plan cycle.

We need to free up planners to better concentrate on inclusive growth by being actively involved in regional partnerships. Amendment 42 would retain the requirement for a new plan to be submitted within four years of the current plan being approved, but the national planning framework and local development plans are moving to a 10-year cycle. I do not want strategic planning to be bogged down in procedures or our strategic planners to adopt a plan and then immediately move on to preparing the next one, rather than actively promoting the plan’s delivery. They should have a longer-term focus.

I also want strategic planning to be flexible in terms of geography and local authorities’ governance arrangements, rather than having things dictated and fixed in regulations. The system should allow all local authorities to decide what works best for them, rather than being driven by ministers.

Monica Lennon supports retaining strategic development plans, but has some changes to suggest. Her proposal to replace main issues reports with an evidence report reflects the new procedures for local development plans, but there would be no benefit, and the much bigger opportunities arising from a new approach—an approach that is not entirely focused on preparing a plan in isolation—would be lost.

I have particular concerns that amendment 189 would also remove the examination of strategic development plans. I presume that Ms Lennon thinks that strategic development plans would still be part of the statutory development plan, but without any independent scrutiny. I ask Mr Simpson and others to think about how the stakeholders that they have been working with, such as Homes for Scotland, would feel about that.

Experience has shown that we can have little confidence that strategic development plans would be adequate if they were not independently examined. Although I cannot comment on specific plans, including those that are currently before me, some strategic development plans have had problems tackling significant issues, leaving them to be addressed in the examination. I would not like to speculate on whether that is because authorities are unable to properly tackle challenging issues or is down to people relying on the examination or ministers to make difficult decisions on their behalf. Such issues include housing requirements, retail and town centre allocations and major cross-boundary infrastructure requirements. I am sure that the committee can see that those are not matters of detail; they are significant issues and strategic development plans are failing to address them.

In short, amendment 189 has significant disadvantages. It does not tackle the existing issues with strategic planning in the way that my proposals would have done. In fact, it will compound the problems that we have seen for some years now and, in doing so, will jeopardise the credibility of the planning system as a whole. I urge the committee not to support it.

Similarly, I do not support amendment 221. That amendment seeks to insert strategic and cross-boundary planning matters into local development plans. As I said in my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, that could result in a loss of strategic focus, as well as duplication and confusion between plans.

On amendments 85 in the name of Andy Wightman and 85A in the name of Monica Lennon, I have already set out my response to related amendments around gender and equalities. Although I fully recognise and support the issues, I ask the committee to bear in mind existing requirements under the Equality Act 2010 before adding any further duties, and not to support those amendments.

Monica Lennon

I have a question about Engender, which I mentioned last week and again today. Have you had a meeting with Engender? Can you explain to the committee why you think Engender thinks that the equality impact assessment on the bill is pretty useless in relation to gender?

Kevin Stewart

I have exchanged correspondence with Engender and other organisations. Last week, I outlined in great detail all the responsibilities that we have as ministers and parliamentarians—responsibilities that are outlined in various pieces of legislation, including the Equality Act 2010—and I am not going to do so again. Adding the proposals in the amendments to the bill would take away from those duties, which should cover every aspect of legislation that this Parliament passes.

As I have already said, I proposed a new approach to strategic planning in amendment 116, but the committee did not support it. The original provisions in the bill on the national planning framework still include scope for authorities to work together to inform the national planning framework, and could allow for a more flexible approach to strategic planning. However, if strategic development plans are retained, it is unlikely that authorities will be able to work as closely with the Government in preparing the national planning framework. It also leaves the rest of the country outwith the four SDP areas operating in a different context. We estimated that removing the formal process around strategic development plans would free up around £2.5 million for more effective ways of working. That money will no longer be available if the amendments in this group are agreed to.

Graham Simpson

I have listened carefully to all the contributions. The stage 1 report merely reflected that we had heard no evidence that getting rid of strategic development plans was a good thing. What we called for in that report was that, if we were to agree to get rid of them, there should be something more robust in their place. We all agree that there is a need for regional working. That can be the driver of growth in Scotland, and it is what we need. However, we have not heard about something better, so I encourage the minister to reflect on that before stage 3; if he has better ideas, I urge him to talk to people about them. That may well be the stage at which we can look at the issue again.

Kevin Stewart

I put forward better ideas in amendment 116; unfortunately, that was rejected by the committee last week. I fully intend to bring back similar proposals at stage 3. I am always willing to talk to members about aspects of planning, and Mr Simpson knows that my office door is open. However, I reiterate the points that I have made about the amendments in this group. I also reiterate that, as things stand at the moment, we have four SDP areas, and other areas need to look at that. As Mr Gibson knows, if the Ayrshire deal is our next growth deal, it would be good for the Ayrshires to have the flexibility to plan strategically at the regional level. If amendment 116 had been agreed to, the provisions that it proposed would have provided that opportunity.

The Convener

Could you begin to draw your comments to a close, please?

Kevin Stewart

I will, convener.

The committee should not underestimate the importance of the decisions that they will make on this group of amendments. If members decide to retain strategic development plans or, worse still, to bring in an even more unworkable version of them, they will increase, not reduce, complexity and duplication in the system and allow a small but vocal group of planners in Scotland to cling to an outdated and ineffective pursuit that costs a lot and provides very little benefit in return.

I expect that Mr Wightman and Ms Lennon will press their amendments, but I urge the committee to reject them.

The Convener

I invite Andy Wightman to wind up.

Andy Wightman

This is a Government bill. The onus is on the Government to make the case for change and our job in Parliament is to scrutinise that case and assess whether it is well made. The view of the committee at stage 1 was that that case has not been made.

As I think that I indicated last week—I may not have, but I will this week—the parts of amendment 116 that related to strategic development had some merit. Our problem with amendment 116 was that it sought to make changes not only to section 1 but to section 2 at the same time, so we did not really have much choice in the matter. Time remains. We have three or four weeks yet to get through stage 2, so there is time to have further discussions about how we can rectify some of the problems that the minister claims exist in the current system. In preparation for that, amendment 42 retains the status quo, which I think is the appropriate thing to do where a case has not been well made.

I am very open to having discussions about cycles and strategic development planning, for example, and about the minister’s ideas on the future of regional planning. Changes can be made, and there are deficiencies in the current system. However, I repeat that the case for change has not been made. In particular, the details suggest an essentially voluntarist approach that places significant responsibility for regional planning on ministers, who in my view are principally responsible for national planning. That does not make for robust regional planning.

11:00

Kevin Stewart

As I pointed out in my comments, one of the difficulties with the existing strategic development planning approach is that it is not robust. During the examination, it often falls to ministers and others to point out the difficult decisions that the current SDPs do not take. It is difficult for me to give examples of that, because some of those matters are still live. However, I ask all members of the committee to look at some of the recent difficulties that there have been with agreements on housing numbers or infrastructure construction, for example.

Andy Wightman

Although I thank the minister for his intervention, there is a critical difference between whether a process is robust and whether the plans produced as a consequence of that process are robust. If I understand the minister correctly, he is talking about deficiencies in the plans that are presented at the examination. I need further convincing that those deficiencies are a consequence of a flawed process. I am happy to listen to and be persuaded by that evidence, given that the bill is about process.

On gender, the proposal in amendment 85 is for a statement to be made, in this case in a strategic development plan; that is all that it requires. I hear what the minister says about the broader equalities duties that are placed on public authorities and I do not dispute what he says—those duties exist. However, the point about the statement is that it is a means of assessing whether the duties that the minister rightly argues exist are being upheld.

Annabelle Ewing

I will make my point with a question. What about a statement on the housing needs of veterans, or of families with a disabled child? Everybody has an expectation of being treated fairly under the planning system, and that obviously covers issues relating to gender and other protected characteristics. My point is that we are creating a system for everybody, and the minute that we start limiting whom particular provisions apply to there is a danger that we do not treat everybody fairly.

Andy Wightman

I hear that point about vets, disabled children and so on, but the gender question that we are considering is in a different domain. There is a lot of academic evidence that the planning system is highly gendered. That evidence is broad; for example, I could point the member to the plans in Vienna, which are regarded as very progressive and have identified a huge range of issues on which planning outcomes have been highly gendered. In Vienna, they have sought to rectify matters. It is a major problem that affects half the population and while I totally take on board the need for the planning system to deal with everyone’s needs appropriately, I do not think that the evidence on those issues is on the same scale as the evidence that has been presented in relation to gender.

I will conclude by saying that the requirement to make the statement—

Kevin Stewart

Before you do—

The Convener

You may intervene if Andy Wightman is willing to take your intervention, but please make it very brief, minister.

Andy Wightman

I am happy to take an intervention.

Kevin Stewart

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 85A disagreed to.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 85 disagreed to.

Amendment 189 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 189 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 189 agreed to.

Amendment 86, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 86A, 107, 172, 34, 161, 162, 173, 222, 223, 163, 35, 52, 174, 73, 82, 190, 36, 224, 37, 54, 54A, 108, 109, 191, 117, 192, 225, 175, 110, 7, 75, 111 and 176.

Andy Wightman

We are now in the group on local development plans.

Amendment 86 incorporates for local development plans the same requirement for a statement on how the plan will take account of gender. We have discussed that at length, so I will say nothing more on it.

Amendment 173 requires a local development plan to include a statement on plans and policies in relation to listed buildings. That provides an opportunity to highlight to owners of such buildings the kinds of uses that the planning authority considers to be appropriate. I have had extensive discussions with interested parties about this and, although there is some interest in it and they feel that there is some merit in some of it, the amendment might be more appropriately drafted to refer only to buildings on a register of buildings in disrepair and at risk. I am interested in hearing the committee’s views and I will consider not moving amendment 173 and discussing it further for stage 3.

11:15

Amendment 176 requires planning authorities to take into account the open spaces strategy that is proposed under amendment 171, which has already been debated and agreed to.

I am broadly supportive of most of the other amendments in the group, but I want to speak to amendment 163, in the name of John Finnie, who is unable to be here today. Last week, John Finnie moved amendment 160 and the committee agreed to it. It sought to have the national planning framework have regard to

“the desirability of preserving disused railway infrastructure for the purpose of ensuring its availability for possible future public transport requirements.”

Amendment 163 makes exactly the same ask with regard to the local development plan. Amendment 160 was supported, so it would be logical to support amendment 163.

I move amendment 86.

The Convener

Thank you. That was commendably brief. If everybody else wants to follow that example, I will be more than happy.

Monica Lennon

Like Andy Wightman, I will not labour the points about gender and equality. We have made those arguments and will keep making them at later meetings.

Amendment 107 is about asking planning authorities to assess the health implications of decisions. I appreciate the point that the minister made last week that land use planning cannot reach into every aspect of health, but that does not justify excluding health considerations from the local development plan. I hope that the committee will agree and take the opportunity to improve health outcomes in this manner.

I move amendment 86A.

The Convener

Wow! Thank you.

Kenneth Gibson

Amendments 172, 174, 175 and 54A, in my name, are the final four of a set of amendments to facilitate provision of sufficient homes that meet the specific needs of older people and disabled people. In that respect, it is important that local development plans should be informed by the national targets and the national planning framework, as we agreed last week.

Amendment 172 specifies the need for the local development plan to

“include targets for the provision of housing for older people and disabled people for the part of the district to which it relates.”

That should include

“the adaptation of existing housing to meet the housing needs of older people and disabled people”

and

“the building of new housing to meet the needs of older people and disabled people”.

Amendment 174 seeks to ensure that local development plans include a detailed statement of the priority that is being given by the planning authority to addressing the housing needs of older people and disabled people and the policies and proposals that the planning authority is progressing and will progress.

Amendment 175 requires planning authorities to include details in the local development plans of any land designated for the development of older people’s housing. It makes an important contribution to addressing the housing needs of older people and disabled people by ensuring that planning authorities focus on their housing needs when preparing LDPs.

Amendment 54A is simply an addition of the words “and disabled people” to Alexander Stewart’s amendment 54.

Graham Simpson

I will also try not to take up too much time. I have amendments 34, 35, 73, 36, 37, 7 and 75, but it is not as bad as it sounds.

The Convener

It sounds pretty bad.

Graham Simpson

The theme of many of the amendments is the protection of the green belt and the localising of decision making. The intention of amendment 34 is for local planning authorities to prepare and maintain a register of previously developed brownfield land and, in effect, for councils to direct development to brownfield land ahead of green belt. The key word in amendment 34 is “presumption”, so there is some flexibility there, which is important. That has got to be right, because every bit of evidence that the committee has heard shows the need to keep green spaces for people’s physical and mental health, and that is the intention behind amendment 34.

The effect of amendment 34 would also be to direct development into existing towns and cities, maybe even town centres, all of which is sorely needed. As with another amendment of mine, however, I realise that this is probably not the finished article and I might well need to make some changes for stage 3. I am happy to have discussions about that.

I have always believed that variety is the spice of life. That applies to homes as well as other things. We should be making it easier for people to build their own homes. One way of doing that is to make plots easily identifiable through a register of self-build plots. Amendment 35, which has been welcomed by Scottish Land & Estates, would facilitate that. The register would be publicly visible and people who wish to build their own homes could express an interest in the plots.

There is something similar down south, although the difference there is that councils keep a register of those who are interested in self-build. Such a scheme was put in place by the Greater London Authority, where public land was released for development, and it helped to increase housing supply across the area. The scheme run by the GLA was imaginatively called the build-your-own London home register. It could easily be reproduced as a build-your-own Scottish home register—there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

The register could empower people to shape their own living spaces in the way they want and would contribute to vibrant and varied communities. Facilitating that custom-built approach would empower individuals and groups. It would also strengthen neighbourhood links and create local construction jobs, which is a good thing.

Monica Lennon

It is an interesting concept. It would not be onerous for planning authorities if individuals declared themselves as being interested in self-build. However, if the planning authority had to provide a map-based list of sites that included every piece of land that could be used for self-build, that would be a pretty serious task. To keep that up to date would be very resource intensive.

Can Graham Simpson say some more about what he thinks the scheme would look like in practice? It sounds like a very big job. Would it include someone’s very large garden? In that case, the curtilage might lend itself to subdivision, but the home owner might have no interest in selling off a bit of their land. How would the scheme work in practice?

Graham Simpson

I just want to check whether Mr Stewart is all right—he is doing a lot of coughing.

Alexander Stewart

I am fine.

The Convener

Are you all right, Mr Stewart?

Alexander Stewart

Thank you, convener, I am not expiring yet.

Monica Lennon

It was not that bad a question.

Graham Simpson

It was a very fair question, I just wanted to make sure that Mr Stewart was okay before I answered it.

It is a good point. If the amendment is agreed to, it could be improved on at stage 3. I would see the scheme as applying only to council-owned land. I take Monica Lennon’s point that to widen it out to non-council land would be an enormous task. I would like to think that people would see merit in the proposal. I am prepared to reconsider it at stage 3.

The bill leaves out some vital considerations in relation to the preparation of local development plans. Amendments 36, 37 and 75 would ensure that housing need, education services and built heritage are taken into consideration when the local development plans are being put together.

The local development plan should be consistent with the NPF. Thanks to the amendment in my name that was passed last week, the NPF will now go through a lot of scrutiny and will provide the direction of development on a national scale. However, it is only sensible that plans are joined up and that local development plans are consistent with the national planning framework. Amendment 7 is designed to make that happen.

There we are—that was not too painful, convener.

The Convener

Well, I am not sure about that. Thank you anyway, Mr Simpson.

I welcome Alison Johnstone to the committee. I should have already welcomed all the other MSPs who are here and who are not members of the committee. However, there are so many of them that I thought that it would take up half the meeting.

Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)

Thank you, convener—I am pleased to be here.

Amendments 161 and 162 seek to introduce a requirement for planning authorities to consider the provision of public conveniences and water refill stations as part of their local development plans. I will deal first with amendment 161, on the provision of public conveniences. A lack of accessible and functioning public toilets reduces the quality of our neighbourhoods and parks and all our public places and reduces the quality of our lives. We are seeing the widespread closure of public conveniences across the country, with the number of council-owned bathrooms falling from 759 in 2000 to 421 this year. The Press and Journal has found that, on average, Scottish local authorities have closed 45 per cent of public toilets.

The NHS estimates that 3 million to 6 million people in the United Kingdom suffer from some degree of urinary incontinence, and the shortage of public toilets can hamper their quality of life. The issue affects people of all ages and various groups, including the elderly, young children, disabled people, pregnant women and active travellers, all of whom need free and easy access to clean toilets. The issue affects us all.

Age UK has highlighted that the issue prevents many old people from going out and about on a daily basis, with the result that they lose confidence and are reluctant to visit new places, which of course increases isolation. As we live in an ageing society, the issue is not going to go away—it will get bigger—which is perhaps why the World Health Organization has chosen to highlight the availability of clean, conveniently located, well-signed and disabled-accessible toilets as a major indicator in its age-friendly cities guide.

I make it clear that the intention is not to introduce a statutory duty to provide public conveniences; it is to require planning authorities to give full consideration to whether the provision of toilets can improve public places as part of their overall plans for local areas. That could be part of a community access scheme, such as that run by the City of Edinburgh Council, through which businesses are paid £500 a year to allow free access to their toilets. New developments could be encouraged to plan for their toilets to be accessible to the public in a similar manner.

It would be remiss of me not to add my voice on the issues that Alison Johnstone is raising, given that the cross-party group on inflammatory bowel disease, which is meeting tonight, is, like many other groups, campaigning for people who suffer in this regard. In Scotland, there has been a rise in the number of young people with inflammatory bowel disease. People can be in the Royal Association for Disability Rights—RADAR—scheme and get a key, but the reducing number of facilities is causing a problem. It feels as if we are in the dark ages in Scotland, because people cannot always use a public toilet when they need to. There are people in society who have greater needs, and I just wanted to put on the record that people with IBD, of which there is a growing incidence in Scotland, need to have confidence that, when they are out and about, they can access public toilets.

Alison Johnstone

I thank colleagues for their interventions.

We probably all grew up in an era when public water fountains were the norm, but as they have disappeared, there has been an increased reliance on single-use plastic bottles. The Victorians introduced both public conveniences and water fountains to our towns and cities, but we have lost many water fountains because it is sometimes quicker and more convenient to go and buy a bottle of water. I am heartened because I am seeing local businesses saying to people, “You can refill your water bottle here”, but it would be helpful to understand what the options are across the country. Water fountains cut back on the plastic waste that costs us all a fortune—it is one of the things that we pay for through our council tax—so there is a saving to be made there, too, as well as the environmental benefit.

Scotland could follow the lead that has been taken by the Netherlands. It has a programme called join the pipe and it has installed more than 2,000 water taps throughout the country in public spaces, parks, sports fields and schools. It provides convenient refill and it sells its own refillable bottles. The city of Amsterdam also sells its own refillable bottles to encourage tourists not to go down the single-use plastic route. Closer to home, campaigners in Bristol have encouraged 200 businesses to sign up to a scheme to allow people to refill bottles for free.

It is also about making sure that there is public awareness of what is available. Even where people can access public conveniences in local cafes, for example, they have to understand that that is acceptable. We still have people who are uncomfortable asking for keys or codes to use a public toilet, so there will have to be some education around this, too.

The mayor of London is overseeing the roll-out of public water fountains. I will not say anything bad about the water in London, but I am sure we all agree that we have great water in Scotland and we should be making the most of it.

Monica Lennon

I welcome Alison Johnstone’s amendments 161 and 162, and her commentary on them has been very useful. I hope that we all agree that access to toilets and drinking water is a basic human right, and some of us are trying to embed that in every part of the planning system through the opportunity that the bill presents.

Recently, I spoke to Morven Brooks, who is the chief executive of Disability Equality Scotland. The points have already been made, but she talked about disabled people being humiliated and stuck at home. Other parts of the Government are working on strategies to tackle loneliness and social isolation, and we are trying to make sure that all the strands of policy are joined up. Alison Johnstone’s amendments are proportionate, because they ask planning authorities to be mindful and to provide a statement. They acknowledge that there are issues and challenges but that implementation and delivery are matters for councils and others.

On a positive note, the more we raise awareness, the more can be achieved. For example, wearing another campaign hat, on period poverty, I give the example of Network Rail, which has agreed that it will remove the toilet charges in Edinburgh and provide water fountains next year. If we put the matter in the minds of every planning authority, it will spark conversations with developers and other partners in the public sector. Amendments 161 and 162 would really add value to the bill.

The Convener

I remind members to keep their interventions short. We have a lot to get through and very little time in which to get through it.

Alison Johnstone

Amendment 162 could encourage planning authorities to go further along the path that I described, and enable local authorities to innovate with their own schemes to provide free drinking water and reduce levels of plastic waste.

Pauline McNeill

I have been working with Inclusion Scotland and Age Scotland on amendments 222 and 223 in my name, which deal with accessible housing and dementia-friendly homes. Kenny Gibson and Alexander Stewart mentioned the issue, so there might be some duplication. I agree that the planning system alone cannot provide a complete solution to the problem, but we need to encourage bolder action on housing for disabled people and dementia-friendly housing.

Fourteen per cent of households in Scotland include someone who uses a wheelchair or mobility aid, but only 0.7 per cent of local authority housing and 1.5 per cent of housing association property is accessible to wheelchairs. Horizon Housing Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing undertook research in 2012 and estimated that more than 17,000 wheelchair users in Scotland had unmet housing needs. It is widely accepted that that was an underestimate. The Government’s commitment to build 50,000 new homes is welcome and presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address the shortfall in accessible and dementia-friendly housing.

Some local authorities have targets on provision of wheelchair-accessible housing. For example, in its strategic housing investment plan, Glasgow City Council requires

“all housing developments of 20 units or over to deliver 10% of units as readily adaptable.”

The council wants to ensure that the housing stock across the city becomes more accessible.

Inverclyde Council’s local housing strategy says that

“a target of 3% of all new build social housing has been set”

for wheelchair-accessible housing.

Other authorities might have taken action, but it is clear that provision is not wide enough, given the demographic issue, with more older people and the need for dementia-friendly housing.

Amendments 222 and 223 offer similar models. Amendment 222 would require local development plans to include

“a summary of ... action taken ... an analysis of”

how the

“accessible design has helped to meet the ... need of disabled people ... an estimate of the new housing”

and

“an estimate of the existing housing”

that could be adapted to make it more accessible. Proposed new subsection (2B) of section 3 defines “accessible design” as design

“which takes into account the needs, including the mental health and wellbeing needs, of older people in the construction or adaptation of the housing.”

Amendment 223 addresses dementia-friendly housing. It is worth noting that there are no national targets for housing for older people—at least, if there are such targets, I am certainly not aware of them, and I have checked with SPICe. The Scottish Government published its refreshed strategy for housing for older people in August 2018, but made no mention of targets. The issue needs to be addressed.

The structure of amendment 223 is similar to that of amendment 222. It would require a summary of action, an analysis of how design has helped to meet need and

“an estimate of the existing housing which will be adapted using age and dementia friendly design in each year of the local development plan.”

Amendment 223 defines

“age and dementia friendly design”

as design

“which takes into account the needs, including the mental health and wellbeing needs, of older people in the construction or adaptation of the housing.”

I hope that the committee will support amendments 222 and 223.

Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)

I will speak briefly to amendment 52. My proposed approach builds on the approach that other members have proposed and would go slightly further by stipulating that local authorities must earmark “sufficient and appropriate sites” to help to reduce the current chronic shortfall in suitable properties for older people and people with disabilities.

I agree with Pauline McNeill and the minister that such a requirement alone will not solve the problem. However, including it in the bill would be an important step.

I want to pick up on a point that Annabelle Ewing has made previously, which is about why we are picking out people with disabilities and older people. I think that the reason for that is that the type of housing that is required for them is different from the type that is required for veterans or single parents. I heard an almost tragic tale recently of a case in a part of Scotland—not Edinburgh—where it was realised only after a number of houses had been built that two disabled flats had to be included and the whole block had to be redesigned and done again because no one had thought about that earlier. That is not the way we should be going.

When we think of disability, often we think of wheelchairs, which Pauline McNeill mentioned, but disability goes beyond people who need wheelchair access. Design of houses must accommodate people with different types of disabilities, hidden or obvious, and that needs to be thought about at an early stage. Clearly, older people’s housing and disability housing can be more expensive because of the adaptations that are required, so when a piece of land comes up, it may well go to general housing or to retail or office development simply because of cost factors. Unless there is a stipulation in legislation, I fear that that will go on.

The other benefit of doing what is proposed is that it will release housing in other sectors, so if older people have more appropriate homes that they can move into at an older age, they may be able to give up a traditional family home and put it on the market, which could allow perhaps up to £33 billion of homes to become available, with the knock-on effect of an economic boost.

My amendment 52 sends an important signal about the obligation on local authorities, that unless we start addressing the issues around disability and older people, we will face major problems in the years ahead.

The Convener

I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 224 and other amendments in the group, including speaking on behalf of Claire Baker on amendment 82.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

I will speak first to amendment 224. I will not rehearse the arguments that I made last week about the importance of repopulation and resettlement. Amendment 224 is the same as amendment 217, on the national planning framework, which last week was debated and moved, and was passed by the committee. Amendment 224 relates to the local development plan and refers to

“the desirability of allocating land for the purpose of resettlement,”

making that one of the matters to be considered in the preparation of local development plans.

Amendment 82, in the name of Claire Baker, is similar, in that it complements amendment 71, on the national planning framework, which was agreed to last week. It would add “cultural” to the list of characteristics to be considered in local development plans, thereby recognising the importance of cultural assets and acknowledging their importance in decision making.

The Convener

I call Alexander Stewart to speak to amendment 54 and other amendments in the group.

Alexander Stewart

Amendment 54 would ensure that the evidence reports that planning authorities will have to prepare must consider older people’s housing needs. The bill indicates that the planning authority is to submit the evidence reports to Scottish ministers, who will then appoint a person to assess whether the report contains enough information on older individuals for planning authorities. Amendment 54 would ensure that the evidence reports consider

“the housing needs of older people”.

The Convener

I call Alasdair Allan to speak to amendment 191 and other amendments in the group.

Dr Alasdair Allan (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)

As I mentioned last week, I have been working with Community Land Scotland on amendments that would promote the needs of parts of Scotland that have become depopulated, and would encourage their repopulation. The amendments that I am speaking to today have the same theme. I was gratified that the committee supported—unanimously, I think—the ideas that I and others put forward last week, even if the section of the bill that we were seeking to amend did not survive that meeting.

I should say that amendment 191 is not in any way dependent on the arguments for or against amendment 116. Amendment 191 will amend section 15(5) of the 1997 act, so that planning authorities would, when they prepare the local development plans spatial strategy, have to take into account

“rural areas in ... which there has been a substantial decline in population”.

Amendment 192 cross-references the provisions in amendment 191 with the regulations that ministers would have the power to make. I hope that amendments 191 and 192 will gain support on those grounds.

The Convener

I call the minister to speak to amendment 117 and other amendments in the group.

11:45

Kevin Stewart

There are many amendments in the group, so I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible. I have listened carefully while members have spoken about a wide range of matters for local development plans to address, but I am not entirely convinced that everything that has been suggested is a matter for local development plans to address.

Planning touches on so many areas that section 3 could be endless if we were to try to name everything that local development plans should cover. Some of the amendments relate to existing policies in Scottish planning policy that the committee has agreed should be incorporated in the national planning framework. Last week, I reminded the committee that we are trying to streamline the system: I make the point again today. I ask members to bear it in mind that primary legislation should, ideally, avoid listing every relevant planning policy or issue.

Following my comments last week, I am happy to support amendment 225, in the name of Claudia Beamish, on renewable energy; amendment 163, in the name of John Finnie, on disused railways; and amendment 82, in the name of Claire Baker, on culture.

On repopulating rural areas, I support amendments 191 and 192, in the name of Alasdair Allan, but I maintain my view that amendment 224, in the name of Rhoda Grant, goes too far.

I explained last week that assessments that relate to gender equality are more fully covered by the existing duties, which I talked about earlier, in the Equality Act 2010 and the 1997 act. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 86 and 86A.

Health impact assessment is included in strategic environmental assessment, so I do not support amendments 107, 110 and 111.

On amendment 108, I agree that development planning should take into account the “capacity of health services”. I believe that that would fit more appropriately in section 15(5)(d) of the 1997 act, which relates to infrastructure, but I am content to support amendment 108.

I find it difficult to support the breadth of amendment 109. Planning authorities cannot be expected to identify and address all the health needs of the populations of their areas. However, I support the more appropriate approach in amendment 190.

Eight amendments from different members seek to ensure that the housing needs of older people and disabled people are reflected appropriately in local development plans. I have explained that a lot of work is already being done, and that the issue is well covered by policy in practice as well as by the programme for government. It is clear from the amendments that there are different views on how this complex issue should be addressed in local development plans, and we cannot fully prescribe how it should be addressed in primary legislation. I agree that the matter is important now and that it will be even more so in the future, but we cannot reasonably include all the amendments, because there is a degree of duplication and overlap.

I therefore suggest that agreeing to amendment 54, in the name of Alexander Stewart, amended by amendment 54A, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, would be the best way of ensuring that the bill reflects the issue, without attempting to include an inappropriate level of detail. I ask the committee to support amendments 54 and 54A and to reject the other amendments that relate to the matter.

A lot of the issues that have been talked about today are being looked at in the refreshed local housing strategy, which is the best place to consider the needs of individuals in relation to age or disability. We cannot assess at strategic level how existing homes meet the needs of their occupants and—as I have said—adaptations, for which health and social care partnerships are responsible, do not often require planning permission.

I will not dwell on amendments 36 and 37, which are in the name of Graham Simpson, on housing and education. I ask the committee not to support them and instead to agree to amendment 117, which is in my name. The wording of amendment 117 better reflects established planning terminology in relation to housing. I consider that “education facilities” should be identified as an essential type of infrastructure, rather than in the broader terms in amendment 37. I would be happy to work with Monica Lennon to add health services thereto.

In amendment 35, Graham Simpson proposes adding a requirement for local development plans to set out a list for self-build housing sites. Diversifying housing delivery was supported by the independent review panel, and we have since undertaken a programme of work to support and promote self-build and custom-build projects here in Scotland. That includes a £160,000 challenge fund for pilot projects, and we have launched a national £4 million self-build loan fund to support self-builders who are unable to access standard bank lending. I have some concerns about how that fits with current practice on allocating sites on local development plans, so some adjustment may be needed, but I support the principle and am happy to support amendment 35.

I turn to amendment 176, on open space. Again, I recognise that that is an important policy issue. I have already set out my thoughts on amendment 171, and they also apply here. I do not support amendment 176.

In amendment 34, Graham Simpson seeks to introduce a presumption in favour of developing brownfield land before any land that has been designated as green-belt land is developed. It includes a requirement for planning authorities to maintain a register of brownfield land that is suitable for residential use, although the presumption would not be limited to such use. I agree with the broad sentiments behind amendment 34. It is not a new idea; it reflects a classic town planning debate that has gone on for some time. However, I have a number of significant concerns. I do not support the introduction of a blanket presumption in favour of—or, indeed, against—any particular type of development in a particular location. That would not allow for local circumstances and the merits of each case to be taken into account.

Brownfield sites share characteristics, but they are not all the same. Whether they are suitable or viable for development depends on a range of factors, including neighbouring and compatible uses and their proximity to infrastructure including public transport, schools and health facilities. Such sites can offer temporary or permanent greening opportunities within towns and cities.

Equally, there can be brownfield sites in the green belt—for example, abandoned agricultural buildings that would do well to be redeveloped. It is not such a clear-cut issue as Mr Simpson’s amendment 34 suggests. Amendment 34 could have a significant impact on the viability of residential development and the number of homes that can be delivered. It would remove the discretion and local knowledge that planning authorities can use to direct the right development to the right place. A standardised approach to the question of planning for housing and protection of the green belt is not, in my view, the right solution.

Several amendments in the group relate to built heritage. I have no objection—

Graham Simpson

Will the minister—

Kevin Stewart

I will finish this part first, Mr Simpson.

I have no objection to Graham Simpson’s amendment 73, and I agree that the built heritage is an important part of the quality, distinctiveness and identity of many of our places, which it would be useful to highlight.

Graham Simpson

I completely take on board what the minister has said about brownfield sites. In my opening remarks, I said that I did not think that amendment 34 is the finished article, by any stretch of the imagination. Is the minister prepared to work with me on something for stage 3, in which case I will not press amendment 34?

Kevin Stewart

Without making any major commitment here today, I say that I will certainly speak to Mr Simpson about the issue. My problem is that a presumption in legislation is not as flexible as Mr Simpson perhaps thinks it may be. It is certainly not as flexible as the policy approach that we already have, which will be strengthened through the inclusion of Scottish planning policy in the national planning framework. I am happy to have further discussions with Mr Simpson on that or any other matter, if he wishes, and I would be grateful if he does not press amendment 34 today.

Amendment 75 relates to Graham Simpson’s proposal for a new system for protecting “locally significant buildings”. I consider it to be unnecessary. It would create an additional statutory list of buildings that are locally significant. I am not aware of any evidence or consultation supporting that proposal, other than anecdote and a general view that more needs to be done to safeguard the built heritage.

The protection and enhancement of the historic environment are already supported by existing legislation under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. That enables buildings to be listed A, B or C, according to their relative importance. All categories have the same level of protection, and C listing includes “buildings of local importance”.

It is difficult to estimate how many buildings would be included. I believe that there are around 47,500 listed buildings in Scotland at the moment. A new list would be a major undertaking if it sought to pick up additional, less significant buildings that have a purely local value. That would be a substantial additional activity and burden for local authorities.

Can I make a helpful suggestion?

The Convener

If anyone wants to make an intervention, can they please do it through me?

Kevin Stewart

We need to be realistic about what development plans can achieve. As we have pointed out throughout, we want to streamline the system and be better able to move ahead with delivering needed development. Including policies on such detailed matters within local development plans does not sit comfortably in a new system that should be less bogged down—if you will excuse the pun—in detail and more focused on the bigger picture.

Finally, Graham Simpson proposes that local development plans must be “consistent with” the national planning framework, rather than that they “take into account” the framework. This may appear to be a minor difference but the two different forms of wording could have very different effects in practice. I consider that this could have significant implications for the development plan system as a whole.

I believe that the amendment has been inspired by Homes for Scotland, which wants to see consistency within the system. However, I believe that Homes for Scotland also wants planning to respond to changing circumstances. There may well be good reasons for flexibility; specific local circumstances may justify a more tailored local approach or more up-to-date information could emerge from land audits after the national planning framework has been adopted.

The requirement for consistency has caused significant problems in the existing planning system. Local development plans that come forward late have to be consistent with housing targets that have been set out in strategic development plans years earlier and cannot take into account more recent evidence. We want plans to reflect the best available information rather than slavishly following a fixed and out-of-date hierarchy.

If the bill required consistency, local development plans would in every case be expected to simply incorporate the national planning framework without being able to question or adjust it. We consider that the requirement to “take into account” the framework maintains the connection but allows for greater flexibility where there is evidence that provides a reason for such flexibility. I am a bit surprised by the amendment, given Mr Simpson’s concerns about centralisation, and I hope that the committee will not support it.

I agree that some matters are of such strategic importance that they should be explicitly required in local development plans. However, some of the amendments go too far towards setting out policy in primary legislation or address relatively narrow issues and create a risk that authorities will focus on a mixed bag of statutory requirements at the expense of more coherent planning policy.

I will keep this quite brief. The debate on amendments 161 and 162 crystallised some of the issues. The minister disagrees that local development plans are the place, and it was Pauline McNeill, I think, who said that if they are not the place, where is the place?

Local development plans are the opportunity and the place in which planning authorities set out their views on spatial allocation of land and development in their area. If a duty is placed on them to include a statement—which may be a sentence or 10 pages—about the provision of public conveniences and water refill points, such a statement could be to the effect that all new development of a certain type shall consider including the provision of public conveniences and water refill points. I merely throw that in as an example. It could, in particular, be for developments that create new public spaces or for developments that take the place of older developments and give the opportunity to upgrade.

Kevin Stewart

Will Andy Wightman take an intervention?

Andy Wightman

I will in a second. Local development plans are the place for planning authorities to express a view and make a statement as to how we could increase the availability of public conveniences and water refill points. Such a statement is not about implementation, of course, but it would be helpful to guide developers and the owners of land, through knowing that bringing forward certain developments would have an expectation that those things be done.

Kevin Stewart

There would be an expectation from folk out there that such a statement would automatically lead to this, that or the other, but that is not what it does at all. In an amendment that we will deal with later, Mr Balfour sets out clearly how to bring forward changing places toilets. I am willing to have further discussions with Ms Johnstone about the issue, but I do not think that having a statement in the local development plan is necessarily the way to deal with it. It certainly would not provide the solution that many folks out there would like to see.

Andy Wightman

I thank the minister for his intervention. If the public expects a statement to deliver the kind of changes that some of them might wish for, that expectation is misplaced. That does not mean to say that it should not be contained in a statement. A statement provides an opportunity for people to take a considered view about whether the planning system can do anything to improve the provision of these two things. They might well take the view that there is nothing that they can do, and a statement will be made to that effect.

As the minister says, the planning system is not a solution. If a local authority closes all its public conveniences, it is still open to it to have a planning statement that says that we need them and show the kind of circumstances in which they could be provided. I fundamentally disagree with the minister, which is why I think that amendments 161 and 162 crystallise a lot of the debates that we are having.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 86 disagreed to.

Amendment 107 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 162 agreed to.

Amendment 173 not moved.

Amendment 222 moved—[Pauline McNeill].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 222 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 222 agreed to.

Amendment 37 disagreed to.

Amendment 54 moved—[Alexander Stewart].

Amendment 54A moved—[Kenneth Gibson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 54, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 108 moved—[Monica Lennon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 109 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 109 is agreed to.

Amendment 191 moved—[Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 117 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 192 moved—[Alasdair Allan]—and agreed to.

Amendment 225 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

The Convener

We will stop there. I thank the minister, his officials and all the other MSPs who attended today’s meeting. We will continue stage 2 consideration of the bill next week. Any amendments up to the end of part 3 of the bill should be lodged with the clerks by noon tomorrow. That concludes the public part of today’s meeting.

12:23 Meeting continued in private until 12:44.

19 September 2018

Third meeting on amendments

Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 26 September 2018:

Third Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2

Third Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2

Third meeting on amendments transcript

The Convener

Agenda item 2 is day 3 of stage 2 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, and his accompanying officials. MSPs who are not members of the committee but have lodged amendments to the bill will be in attendance today; they are very welcome. I welcome Daniel Johnson at this point. Some of those MSPs are not present just now, but they will pop in later on.

Section 3—Local development plans

The Convener

Amendment 74, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 112, 194, 118, 118A, 197, 198, 121, 201, 202 and 77.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

I will speak to amendments 74, 201 and 77 in the group, which is on consultation on and participation in the local development plan.

I am not alone in thinking that the front loading of the planning system has not been fully thought through in drafting the bill. I appreciate what the bill is attempting to do but, although the Scottish Government says that it wants a more front-loaded system, I do not think that it has designed one in the bill. In response, I have genuinely tried to be helpful. I have lodged several amendments, some of which are in other groups, that aim to improve the front loading and public participation in the planning system. I am working on more amendments for stage 3, and I am open to speaking to anyone, including the minister, about that. I am genuinely trying to be constructive.

Amendments 74 and 201 work to provide specific directions as to how a planning authority must ensure that it encourages and welcomes public participation. That is what those amendments are all about. We hear a lot—as we did during the written consultation period—that members of the public feel ignored by the planning process. Amendment 74 is intended to provide a route whereby people can get more involved. However, the last line of that amendment states that councils should

“issue a copy of the statement”

on the local development plan

“to each household in their district.”

I have spoken to other members and stakeholders, and I am now of the view that that is too onerous on councils, so I will not move the amendment. However, the sentiments behind it stand, in that I want people to be more involved. Monica Lennon’s amendment 112 on the same subject allows a greater degree of flexibility, so I will support that.

The Convener

Could you move amendment 74 for the sake of the debate? You can seek to withdraw it later.

Graham Simpson

I can move all my amendments in the group.

Amendment 201 is about the Scottish Government issuing guidance on effective community engagement. It is on the same subject. The amendment is backed by the Royal Town Planning Institute, and it still stands because it works.

Amendment 77 refers to the central Scotland green network, which covers 19 council areas—more than half of the local authorities in Scotland. If it is passed, amendment 77 would ensure that those councils have to consult the network on any proposed local development plans. The CSGN is a vital project that is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the green lungs of a large part of Scotland, and it is essential that the network is formally involved in the planning system. The Central Scotland Green Network Trust was uncomfortable with another amendment that I had lodged, so I did not move that one. It did not think that it could work with that amendment, but it is happy with amendment 77. The chairman of the trust, Keith Geddes, told me:

“To achieve positive outcomes in the 19 councils in our area a fundamental building block would be that councils incorporate the principles of CSGN into their LDPs. If we are a National Priority that priority should be incorporated at a local level.”

That makes sense. The area that I represent is also covered by the network. It does a fantastic job, and it should certainly be involved at the local development plan stage. Therefore, I hope that the committee will support amendment 77.

I move amendment 74.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I will speak to amendment 112 and all my other amendments in the group.

Amendment 112 would put a duty on the planning authority to promote the local development plan to local residents

“in such a manner as they consider sufficient to ensure that it is brought to the attention of residents of the area or district to which the local development plan relates.”

Amendment 112 would also require a planning authority to publish a yearly statement

“setting out the steps they have taken to promote the local development plan”.

The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen early engagement in the development of the plan and to put a duty on the authority to promote the plan to local residents and to set out publicly how it has done so. It is about accountability. There are, of course, different needs and requirements across different planning authorities, depending on their geography and population size, for example, but amendment 112 reflects the requirement for authorities to promote the LDP while still allowing flexibility for local decisions to be taken on how best to achieve that.

I welcome Graham Simpson’s comments on amendment 74. I felt that issuing a copy of a statement to every household through the post might be unnecessary and that less prescriptive options were available. I am glad that Graham Simpson will not press that amendment, as I would not have been able to support it.

My other amendments in the group are aimed at strengthening community voices during the consultation phase of local plan preparation. Amendment 194 would introduce specific requirements for the planning authority to consider and facilitate the participation of children and young people in the preparation of the local development plan. That is important because the decisions that we take around planning will affect the lives of children and young people for decades to come. Therefore, it is only right that they are properly consulted. Involving children and young people should result in places that better cater for their needs long into the future and should help to develop citizens who have a good understanding of what planning can achieve and why participating matters.

As a minimum, amendment 194 references

“schools, youth councils and youth parliament representatives”

as points of contact for consulting young people on the plan. Schools are also a mechanism for parents, families and the wider school community to be aware of the local plan.

Amendment 194 also introduces a duty on the authority to publish up-to-date information about how it has gone about meeting its obligations to involve the views of children and young people in the preparation of the plan. As we all know, the United Kingdom is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Scottish Government asserted in the recent programme for government that it will incorporate the principles of the convention into domestic law. Paramount to the UNCRC is the recognition that children are entitled in equal parts to protection, provision and participation. I hope that the Scottish Government will take the opportunity—particularly as it is the year of young people—to put its commitments to protect the rights of children into action in the bill by supporting my amendments.

Amendment 118A would adjust amendment 118 to ensure that the views of children and young people would be sought during the preparation of the evidence report.

Amendment 198 seeks to ensure that, when the evidence report is being prepared, young people will be consulted and that the planning authority must consult the general public and existing statutory consultees for planning applications. I recognise that the principle of amendment 198 is similar to what the minister is trying to achieve in amendment 118. I will support amendment 118, but I will also press my amendment, and I hope that we can reach consensus on what should be required for the preparation of the evidence report for stage 3.

I will not press amendment 197, because it is quite similar to amendment 198, which includes the provision about children and young people.

My amendment 202 would give community councils and access panels the right to be consulted in the preparation of the LDP. Access panels work in their local areas to improve the built environment and promote social inclusion for disabled people, and community councils provide an additional democratic link with local communities. Consulting access panels at an early stage should result in places that are accessible for all and should help to embed equality for people with disabilities in the planning process.

I had a look at the briefing from Disability Equality Scotland. The access panels are fully constituted members of Disability Equality Scotland and are recognised by local authorities. Disability Equality Scotland said in its briefing that, too often, access panels are consulted too late in the process, which

“leaves the knowledge and experience of the Access Panels to a tick box exercise.”

I do not think that any of us would want that to be the case. Across Scotland, the quality of consultation with access panels varies. Giving them the right to be consulted would level the playing field.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

Good morning. First, I will speak to my amendments 118 and 121, which seek to strengthen involvement in local development plans.

During stage 1, the committee and many stakeholders were keen to ensure that the changes to the process of preparing local development plans would result in greater engagement, particularly with groups in society that may not always have their voices heard. That is my aim, too, of course. Early and effective engagement in the preparation of plans that set out the future of our places is critical to their success.

I originally intended to provide more detail on that in secondary legislation and guidance. However, in response to the committee’s concerns and to underline our commitment, I undertook to lodge amendments so that stronger opportunities for engagement in development planning are included in the bill.

Amendments 118 and 119 set out specific requirements for engagement at the crucial early stages of plan preparation. Amendment 118 will require planning authorities to seek and have regard to the views of key agencies, the public at large and others as may be prescribed from preparing their evidence reports. Amendment 119 will require planning authorities to report on how they have done so and how the views expressed have been taken into account.

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Gypsy Travellers are properly involved in planning the future of their places. I agree with the independent panel that children and young people need to be more actively involved in the future of their places. The report on consultation will be specifically required to cover those groups. Under amendment 118, children and young people are those aged 25 and under. The term “Gypsy Travellers” is to be defined in regulations, because there is, to date, no definition in Scots law. We will engage with the community in establishing that definition.

10:00

Monica Lennon’s linked amendment 118A also reflects the need to involve children and young people. Although I agree with the intention behind her amendment, I do not consider it appropriate to specify particular groups of children and young people in primary legislation. It would be better for guidance to indicate the ways in which to engage with those who are not yet involved in the formal structures.

I have the same difficulty with amendments 194, 198 and 202. With regard to amendment 202, access panels are not statutory bodies, and their roles and capacities differ across the country. I hope that they will be involved with local development plans, but I feel that guidance would be a better way of ensuring that each of them is engaged in the way that they find most appropriate. I am happy to have further discussions with Ms Lennon on that area.

I cannot support Monica Lennon’s amendments 197 and 198, which appear to introduce an additional step into the preparation of an evidence report by requiring a draft report to be consulted on. That would lead to delay in plan preparation, and I want stakeholders to play an active part in the preparation of the evidence report instead of being consulted once it has been drafted.

Amendment 77 also raises concerns about the proper place for specific consultation requirements. Our general approach in planning is to specify those requirements in regulations, where they can be adjusted as necessary. I fully respect and support the central Scotland green network and expect the relevant planning authorities to include its co-ordinating organisation in their consultation. However, given that the CSGN partnership was replaced by the Central Scotland Green Network Trust in March 2014—and given that we do not know whether there will be any more changes to names—I think that it would be wiser to keep such provisions in secondary legislation, where they can be kept fully up to date.

The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 already contains a range of requirements relating to the publication of documents at different stages and the provision of information about consultation. Section 20B of that act requires the publication of an annual development plan scheme, including a participation statement that sets out

“when consultation is likely to take place and with whom”,

the form that it will take, and

“the steps to be taken to involve the public at large”.

It must be published—that may include online publication—and a copy must be placed in a public library.

Moreover, section 20A of the 1997 act requires similar publication of the local development plan and copies to be placed in public libraries. The plan must also be advertised in a local newspaper, and anyone who made representations on the proposed plan must be notified. Those are the minimum requirements, but I am aware that authorities regularly go beyond that, in particular by using digital communications to good effect. I have also seen frequent electronic newsletters and council publications covering the plan. As Ms Lennon’s amendment 112 duplicates the requirement to publish the development plan, with less detail, I do not believe that it adds any value.

I am pleased that Mr Simpson will not be pressing amendment 74, because the sort of exercise that he proposed would have been extremely costly. Even a second-class stamp for every household would cost around £1.5 million, and there is, of course, no guarantee that people would read the document in question. I would prefer an emphasis on the quality of engagement and the use of a wider range of techniques to inspire more people to get involved. I am more than happy to talk to Mr Simpson and others about that. I see exactly where he is coming from, and I want as many people as possible to get involved.

Amendment 201, which is also in the name of Mr Simpson, would support that kind of quality engagement and build on the national standards for community engagement, which were reviewed and updated in 2016. Specific advice for planning authorities is contained in planning advice note 3/2010, which was published after the last suite of legislation following the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. That will require to be refreshed, of course, and the principles set out by Mr Simpson are ones that the Scottish Government is willing to support. I therefore ask the committee to support amendment 201.

I hear what the minister is saying, but my intention is to firm things up. I will move amendment 77, but I am certainly open to having further discussions ahead of stage 3.

I will leave it there, convener. I do not think that there are any huge disagreements over the proposals.

Amendment 74, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 175 moved—[Kenneth Gibson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 110 not moved.

Amendment 7 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.

Amendment 75 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 75 disagreed to.

Amendment 111 not moved.

Amendment 176 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 176 agreed to.

Amendment 112 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 112 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 193, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, is grouped with amendments 8, 76, 195, 196, 119, 120, 226, 199, 200, 227 and 203. If amendment 199 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 200, because of pre-emption.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Thank you, convener, for allowing me to be an interloper once again. I am grateful for the committee’s forbearance.

Amendment 193 seeks to reverse provisions in the bill to remove the main issues report. Paragraph 136 of the committee’s stage 1 report says:

“We agree with witnesses that removing the main issues report could reduce the opportunities for engagement with stakeholders and communities.”

The Liberal Democrats absolutely agree with that and, in our consultation with the leaders of all our council groups across Scotland, it was seen as a bastion that they wanted to protect. That speaks to the reasoning behind the amendments that I lodged on changing the national planning framework, which we have already debated. It is about local autonomy and consultation—for my party, the main issues report represents the principal vehicle for local consultation.

I move amendment 193.

Graham Simpson

I will speak to amendments 8, 76 and 120. Amendment 8 relates directly to housing and aims to ensure that the local development plan demonstrates the viability of housing sites. Too often, sites are zoned for housing and then nothing happens for years. We have all seen that happen.

Amendment 8 is designed to ensure that planning authorities do not include allocations in their plans if they are not confident that development can be achieved within the period of the plan. It could inspire the authorities to better consider the viability of meeting policy requirements, particularly in respect of old sites that are reallocated in successive plans, while new sites promoted by house builders and others are subject to increasing scrutiny.

The current practice favours old allocation over new, despite track records of long delivery, market changes and other changes. If amendment 8 is agreed to, with the potential for refinement at stage 3—as you know, convener, I am always up for refining amendments—it could be a useful tool in supporting the plan-led system.

Under amendment 76, which would strengthen community links, evidence reports would have to demonstrate the way in which the planning authority has engaged with the local community to prepare the local place plan. I will say more on that point when speaking to an amendment that we will debate in a later grouping.

I support amendment 200, in the name of Monica Lennon, which would enhance community engagement.

Amendment 120 is also about the evidence report. The amendments in my name are all about enhancing the evidence report.

Monica Lennon

Amendment 195 will require the planning authority to set out how it has consulted on the evidence report and how the views that were expressed during the consultation process have been taken into account.

I am pleased that the committee has supported the retention of strategic development plans. Amendment 226 would require any authority that is not within a strategic development partnership to state in the evidence report how it has taken into account cross-boundary policies and the reasons, if any, why it has not done so. That puts a duty on all planning authorities to engage in regional planning, even if they are not part of a strategic authority. That recognises the value of regional planning and the fact that it deserves dedicated resources even if a planning authority is not part of a strategic development plan authority.

I appreciate Graham Simpson’s supportive comment on amendment 200. The intention behind amendment 200 is to strengthen the gate-check process for the evidence report by creating a representative community panel to encourage positive and early community engagement in the planning process. However, I have been looking at the amendment again and I do not feel that it is satisfactory as currently drafted, so I want to reflect further on it. I will not press amendment 200, but I will come back to the issue at stage 3. I will be happy to speak to Graham Simpson and others about that.

10:15

My final amendment in the group is amendment 227, which would introduce the play sufficiency assessment. Play is vital to children’s physical and mental health as well as to the building of social networks and a sense of community. Amendment 227 highlights the importance of that space and will allow councils and the Government to be held to account if the space is reduced or if we see that not every child has access to a space to play.

The right to play is embedded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Amendment 227 is therefore completely in keeping with Scottish Government commitments to incorporate those principles into domestic law. A similar approach has been taken in Wales, where a duty has been placed on local authorities to assess and secure sufficient play opportunities for children. I hope that the committee and the Government will support amendment 227.

I am supportive in principle of amendment 8, in the name of Graham Simpson, on the issue of viability of housing sites. However, I am glad that Graham Simpson recognises that it probably needs some refinement in terms of how local authorities would assess viability. I think that the word “apparent” appears in the amendment too, and we need some clarity on that. There is work to be done, but I support the amendment in principle.

I also support amendment 196, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which would require authorities to

“assess the demand for, and availability of, student housing”.

For some authorities, it is not—

Graham Simpson

I will just point out that the word “apparent” does not appear in amendment 8.

The Convener

Thank you for the clarification.

Monica Lennon

I apologise. Perhaps I was thinking of another amendment. I will look again before we vote.

The amendment on student housing would not be applicable in every area; it would apply in areas where there are colleges or universities, and it could encourage some transparency over the availability of student accommodation and the need to plan for it. That has been an issue for me in South Lanarkshire recently, because of the relocation of the University of the West of Scotland campus. Daniel Johnson’s amendment 196 would require the authority to take account of the need for student accommodation and the impact on surrounding areas in the evidence report. That is useful information to have when preparing the LDP.

Lastly, the amendments from Alex Cole-Hamilton seek to retain the main issues report, which is being replaced by the evidence report. As I have proposed a number of amendments aimed at strengthening the evidence report, I cannot support Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendments.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)

I thank the committee for welcoming me today; this is very important work. I will make a brief declaration of interests: my wife is a practising planning lawyer.

Monica Lennon has set out many of the reasons why I lodged amendment 196. Student accommodation is having a huge impact on many towns and cities. We have seen a huge increase in the number of student accommodation developments and I feel that the planning process and local development plans in particular need to take account of that.

In the city of Edinburgh, some 20 per cent of people are connected to universities. Therefore, adequate provision in the planning process is hugely important. My amendment would work in a broadly similar way to Graham Simpson’s amendment 8. It is also vital that, in moving forward, we take account of affordability, and the format and massing of student accommodation, and amendment 196 would make important progress on those points. It would ensure that we have a diversity of student accommodation and that we accommodate our students adequately when they seek to study.

Kevin Stewart

I cannot support amendments 193, 199 and 203 from Alex Cole-Hamilton, as they appear to be piecemeal, they do not work on a technical level and they undermine improvements to development planning.

Amendment 193 would reinstate the monitoring report that accompanies the publication of a main issues report. We have proposed removing the requirement for a main issues report, which communities have found hard to understand. No amendments seem to reinstate it, therefore the amendment would result in a monitoring report being published “from time to time” but with no particular stage or timescale specified for doing so. Amendment 203 also appears to replace a reference to the section on the evidence report with a reference to the section on the main issues report, which—as I have already said—will no longer exist. The monitoring report summarises the evidence base for the plan, the changes since the previous plan and its impacts. The evidence report will replace it and go further, so reinstating the monitoring report would simply create duplication.

Amendment 199 would remove the requirement for ministers to appoint a person to assess the evidence report and for that person to notify ministers and the authority whether they are satisfied with the report. That independent scrutiny is important, and members and stakeholders have welcomed that gate-check stage in the process.

On amendment 8, in the name of Graham Simpson, I recognise that development plans should have a focus on delivery and that the sites that they allocate for development should be realistic and viable. However, the amendment raises a number of issues, the first of which is on timing. At the gate-check stage, the focus will be on evidence and information to inform the plan, rather than on allocating sites. The amendment may also mean that land with significant potential—for example, sites that will make a significant contribution to land supply or support regeneration—cannot be included in the development plan, regardless of its merits, if the site proposer cannot meet the information requirements.

I am also concerned about the time and cost that the amendment could add to the process. Our recent research showed that, although more information would be helpful, it would come at a not insignificant cost to the prospective developer. The amendment would apply to sites that may not progress to the proposed local development plan, and so would generate increased risk for site proposers. In recognition of those issues, the research suggested that a staged approach could help to ensure that information requirements do not disadvantage smaller developers or act as a barrier to investment. We intend to develop fuller guidance based on the research, rather than introduce a blanket requirement. That is another example of how a well-intentioned new duty could prove difficult to implement without generating unintended consequences. I ask Mr Simpson not to move amendment 8, although I am happy to have discussions around it.

Mr Simpson’s amendment 76 is linked to a requirement, which we will come to later, for planning authorities to invite communities to prepare local place plans as part of local development plan preparation. I will look at that later amendment in more detail to ensure that local place plans continue to be truly community led, but I have no objection to the requirement to report on that issue and on the assistance that planning authorities have provided to community bodies.

I also support amendment 120, which will introduce a requirement for the full council of a local authority to approve an evidence report before it is submitted to the Scottish ministers. That will help to strengthen corporate responsibility for the plan and will align with the proposal in the bill for the proposed plan to be signed off by the full council.

Amendment 195 is consequential on Ms Lennon’s amendments 197 and 198, which we have already spoken about. Similarly, I have made my points on statutory requirements for consultation with access panels. I do not support amendment 202.

Ms Lennon’s amendment 200 would require planning authorities to set up a panel of citizens to assist the appointed person to consider the evidence report. It is not clear what the role and purpose of such panels would be. Although they might have a role to play in some circumstances, in others they might not. Making the setting up of a citizens panel a blanket requirement for every evidence report could lead to unnecessary delay. In addition, citizens panels can be very resource intensive, have a long lead-in time and be very costly. In prescribing a particular method, amendment 200 overlooks the need to adopt a range of engagement techniques to reflect the needs and preferences of different stakeholders.

It appears that amendment 226 seeks to introduce a new requirement for strategic planning for some planning authorities, which would involve using the evidence report for local development plans. I have a number of significant issues with that. The evidence report has an important role to play in the new process. According to amendment 226, on top of setting out local evidence, it would have to set out proposals and policies for dealing with strategic and cross-boundary issues, and explain how that work was being done, including where, with whom and how it was resourced.

I am concerned that what the amendment proposes is out of step with the new approach to development planning. We want the evidence report to be prepared, published and scrutinised early, and we want the gate check that follows to be transparent, participative and proportionate. It is important that the evidence report is not overloaded.

I am not just concerned about overcomplicating the evidence report. Amendment 226 seems to be an attempt to introduce strategic development planning through the back door, with authorities that are outwith strategic development plan areas being relegated to a second-division approach. Two-tier strategic development planning will just make the process more complicated and confusing. Therefore, I ask the committee to reject amendment 226.

Amendment 227 relates to play opportunities. I consider that the most appropriate place to address that matter is in policy and guidance rather than in the bill. I have already made it clear that we expect the evidence report to cover infrastructure matters for the plan area. “Infrastructure” is broad in meaning, but it includes “green infrastructure”, the definition of which in Scottish planning policy includes play spaces. Therefore, I do not support amendment 227.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment 196 would require the evidence report to identify the demand for and availability of student housing accommodation. Although I wholly agree that housing is a key matter for the evidence report to consider, I do not think it appropriate to include in section 3 a reference to one specific area of specialist housing. I have set out the requirement to consider a range of specialist housing, and student accommodation is included in that.

Officials have been working with a small number of stakeholders to consider how the evidence report could work in practice. I expect that there will be broader interest in that issue and wider views on what the evidence report should contain, and I think that it would be more appropriate for there to be further debate on that when we come to more detailed regulations and guidance. That is provided for in the bill in proposed new section 16A(2)(b) of the 1997 act.

Finally, I will explain my amendment 119. I want there to be a statement in the evidence report that reports on the steps that have been taken to seek views and to engage with people, and on the extent to which those views have been taken into account. Amendment 119 seeks to introduce such a requirement. It also identifies the need for the statement to specifically address how Gypsy Travellers and children and young people have been involved. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Gypsy Travellers are properly involved in planning the future of their places in the same way as everyone else is. We also agree with the independent panel’s view that children and young people need to be more actively involved in the future of their places. The Government’s focused amendments will address the issues that emerged during stage 1 and will ensure that the evidence report is prepared on the basis of meaningful and inclusive collaboration.

I ask the committee to support amendment 119.

The Convener

Thank you, minister. It is amazing how quickly “finally” has become my favourite word.

10:30

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I will say just a few words. I agree with the minister on the amendments in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. The committee, while expressing concern that

“removing the main issues report could reduce ... opportunities”,

went on to say:

“We consider however that the new evidence report and gatecheck provides a mechanism to address these concerns.”

If we are rejecting the main issues report and creating the evidence report, a piecemeal approach to put some of the main issues report amendments back in is not appropriate.

The Convener

Alex, I say for the record that it was not my suggestion that we keep on rubbing this in. [Laughter.]

The result of the division is: For 0, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 193 disagreed to.

Amendment 194 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 194 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 194 agreed to.

Amendment 118 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

Amendment 118A moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 118A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 118A agreed to.

Amendment 118, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 8 not moved.

Amendment 76 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 195 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 195 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 195 agreed to.

Amendment 196 moved—[Daniel Johnson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 196 agreed to.

Amendment 119 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 120 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 197 not moved.

Amendment 198 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 198 agreed to.

Amendment 226 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 226 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

Against

My amendment 127 relates to the participation statement in the development plan scheme. The need to prepare such a scheme is an existing requirement; it sets out the planning authority’s programme for preparing and reviewing its plan, and it must include a participation statement that sets out when and with whom consultation is likely to take place, the likely form of that consultation and the steps to be taken to involve the public at large.

Amendment 127 will mean that when a planning authority is preparing its scheme, it must first of all talk to people about how it can best engage with them. That will improve the effectiveness of engagement and allow authorities to tailor their approach so that a wider range of people can get involved. It is a key part of good practice in engagement that we would expect planning authorities to do anyway, but amendment 127 makes it explicit.

On amendments 122 to 126 and 153, I note that, at stage 1, the bill was described as “centralising”. Of course, I disagree with that, but the committee’s views led the Scottish Government to look again at the balance of powers in the legislation and for opportunities to further strengthen local accountability for planning. As part of that, I revisited the report of the independent planning review panel and our subsequent consultation. Although the panel proposed the removal of plan examinations, our consultation showed a great deal of support for the independent scrutiny that they provide. We sought to move part of that scrutiny to an earlier stage, and we introduced the concept of a development plan gate check. The stage 1 debate also gave us an opportunity to explore more radical options for delivering on the aspirations of the panel and the committee for stronger local ownership of and responsibility for local development plans.

As a result, I am proposing these amendments, which remove Scottish ministers’ ability to intervene in local development plans at the end of the plan preparation process prior to their adoption. The amendments are a collection of detailed and technical changes. Some remove existing requirements to notify ministers—for example, amendment 124 seeks to remove section 19(12) of the 1997 act; some, such as amendment 125, remove ministers’ existing abilities to intervene prior to adoption; and others deal with the consequences of the changes to publication and notification arrangements at the end of the process and ensure that requirements are not duplicated.

Currently, Scottish ministers have 28 days to consider the local development plan before it can be adopted by a planning authority. If, during that time, ministers find the plan to be unsatisfactory, they can direct the authority to consider modifying it. As a result of these amendments, that consideration period will be removed and, following the independent examination of the plan, there will be no intervention in the process by ministers.

The bill as introduced included measures to ensure that timescales and powers for ministers to make directions were adequate and that arrangements were unequivocal. However, in view of the strength of views expressed and to show my commitment to subsidiarity, I have reconsidered that approach.

10:45

As their name suggests, these are “local” development plans. They address local planning matters for local people, they are prepared by local planning officials and they are adopted by locally elected members. It is therefore appropriate that after a comprehensive process of preparation and independent scrutiny, the ultimate decisions on the local development plan rest with the local authority. The amendments align with wider objectives to streamline and front load the development plan process and to use resources effectively. They will shorten the adoption timescale of a local development plan by removing the 28-day consideration period.

The Scottish Government regularly receives correspondence calling on ministers to change local development plans at the very end of the process. There is no statutory provision for that, and the amendments will remove any expectation that changes should be made by ministers after the examination has concluded.

The amendments will further support the front loading of the planning system. Instead of our having oversight at the end of the process, there will be, as we have already proposed, enhanced scrutiny at the gate-check stage. The amendments will also enable Government resources to be focused on where they can support the wider process proactively rather than reactively. Time can be redirected towards contributing to local development plans at an earlier stage and to undertaking engagement and collaborative working to inform the new national planning framework.

I therefore encourage the committee to support the amendments as a sensible approach to preparing plans that leaves the responsibility for local development plans squarely in the hands of local authorities.

Graham Simpson

I strongly welcome the minister’s words and his amendments, which seem to me to make the bill less centralising. I know that the minister does not accept that he was being centralising, but his amendments appear to contradict that and are therefore to be welcomed.

I also welcome the minister’s commitment to subsidiarity and the fact that there will be no intervention from ministers. This is all going in the direction that the committee wanted the bill to go in. The amendments are without a doubt to be supported, and I am also glad to hear that the minister supports amendment 9 in my name.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendments 122 to 127 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Supplementary guidance

The Convener

Amendment 66, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 67, 68, 131 to 136, 69 and 70.

Andy Wightman

Section 4 of the bill repeals section 22 of the 1997 act, which provides that planning authorities “may ... adopt and issue” statutory supplementary guidance in relation to strategic and local development plans. As our stage 1 report noted, the committee remains to be convinced that getting rid of such guidance will simplify local development plans and improve scrutiny and accessibility. A range of planning authorities told us that they found the ability to publish such guidance a useful part of the planning functions, with Edinburgh, for example, highlighting that it enabled it to respond quickly and transparently to changing circumstances. South Lanarkshire also highlighted its ability to adopt guidance on issues such as minerals and onshore wind. This is another part of the bill where, although the status quo might have defects, we are not persuaded that the situation can be resolved by getting rid of the existing provisions in their entirety. As a result, amendment 66 seeks to delete section 4 and to restore the status quo.

Amendment 67 seeks to restore the strategic development plan as part of the development plan as defined under section 24 of the 1997 act, and amendment 68 seeks to restore the language of section 24 of the 1997 act in relation to approval of the plan by the planning authority or Scottish ministers and in relation to supplementary guidance. Finally, amendments 69 and 70 are consequential.

I move amendment 66.

Kevin Stewart

This group of amendments raises significant issues that could have a dramatic and damaging effect on this reform of our planning system.

First, on amendments 66, 69 and 70, there appears to have been some confusion among stakeholders about the removal of supplementary guidance. I remind the committee that the bill seeks to remove statutory supplementary guidance that is currently adopted under section 22(1) of the 1997 act, so that it no longer forms part of the development plan. Authorities would still be able to bring forward guidance on matters relating to the planning system as they saw fit, but although that guidance might be a material consideration in decision making, it would not form part of the development plan.

There are very good reasons for removing statutory supplementary guidance as part of the development plan. Such guidance does not reduce the complexity of development plans—it adds to it. Planning authorities appear to be using it to adopt significant policies that have the full weight of the development plan behind them, but without the rigour, engagement and independent scrutiny that are vital in producing a development plan.

Crucially, I would question the transparency of statutory supplementary guidance. The way in which it is used means that big issues—issues in which developers and communities have a significant interest—are subject to only limited consultation and no independent scrutiny.

It also confuses people, as key policies can be spread across several individual documents that are published at different times. We have clear evidence that supplementary guidance is being overused. Earlier this year, my officials established that at least 342 separate pieces of statutory guidance were referred to in development plans across Scotland, with 12,000 extra pages added to the statutory development plan. The number per authority ranged from zero to 38. That length and that inconsistency are not helpful. As the independent panel recommended, it would be much easier if all local development plan policies and proposals were in one place.

Supplementary guidance generates duplication. At present, many supplementary guidance documents are used to repeat national planning policy, but that will not be necessary if the national planning framework, incorporating Scottish planning policy, forms part of the development plan.

There are further technical difficulties. Planning authorities have used this guidance to add further policies either during the preparation of a plan or afterwards. However, when they adopt a new local development plan, all existing supplementary guidance falls, leaving a policy vacuum until that guidance is replaced.

I understand that environmental organisations have concerns that removing supplementary guidance would result in the loss of environmental policies. However, I would argue the opposite. Instead of leaving significant policy on, for example, green space or wind energy to a separate document, these issues would be addressed up front in the local development plan.

Supplementary guidance adds to the planning system’s complexity and lacks rigour and transparency. That is why the bill seeks to remove those provisions, and it is why I ask the committee to reject amendments 66, 69 and 70.

On amendments 67 and 68, I have already set out my concerns about maintaining strategic development plans, and I have agreed to have further conversations on that issue. For the reasons that I have just explained, we need to remove statutory supplementary guidance in the interests of removing complexity and improving the transparency of development planning. I therefore strongly resist the insertion of these additional documents into the definition of the development plan, as proposed by amendments 67 and 68. Once more, I ask the committee to take the bill as an opportunity to make development plans—and the planning system as a whole—much simpler and easier for everyone to understand. I cannot support amendments that would not only miss that opportunity but make the system even more complicated than it is now.

Finally, the amendments in my name are technical but important to the system’s effectiveness. Amendments 131 to 133 deal with the effective date of provisions of the national planning framework and local development plans, making it clear that if a provision of one part of the development plan is inconsistent with another, the later provision is to prevail. That will be of particular relevance where one document is amended at a later date than the other, and the new arrangements will help development planning move forward instead of having to look back to outdated documents.

Amendments 134 to 136 seek to make minor changes to provisions for legal challenge to the national planning framework in recognition of the provision for it to be amended and the arrangements for publishing an amended framework. However, I would note that amendments 133, 135 and 136 refer to sections that would have been inserted by amendment 116, which has not been agreed to. I will therefore not move those amendments today, but I intend to lodge at stage 3 equivalent amendments with the appropriate references.

Andy Wightman

I listened very carefully to what the minister has said, and I appreciate his putting on the record, perhaps for the first time, a rather clearer exposition of the reasons why the bill does what it does. This is an area where I think there is some confusion, but to my mind, what the minister has said has clarified his intentions. I still want to have further conversations about the matter, because there is no uniformity of view, but in the spirit of good will, I will neither press amendment 66 nor move amendments 69 and 70.

I will be moving amendment 67, because it is consistent with the committee’s approach to date on the retention of strategic development plans. I realise that it contains a provision on supplementary guidance and that, as a result, my intention to move this amendment is not consistent with my decision not to press amendment 66, but given that we are going to have to tidy up strategic development planning in what we are doing, I think that the issue can be dealt with at stage 3.

I will not be moving amendment 68. Amendments 69 and 70 come later in our consideration and, to be frank, I cannot remember what they relate to in schedule 2. Perhaps we will deal with that when we get to the vote in several weeks’ time.

Amendment 66, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

The Convener

This would be a good place to stop for a five-minute comfort break. I ask members to be back here as soon as they can.

10:59 Meeting suspended.

11:05 On resuming—

Section 5—Key agencies

The Convener

Amendment 10, in the name of Graham Simpson, is in a group on its own.

Graham Simpson

I will be quick. I lodged amendment 10 in the mistaken belief, probably because of my lack of expertise in legalese, that the section could apply to named individuals. I have been assured that it does not and that it will merely apply to office-holders. Therefore, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

Section 7—Amendment of National Planning Framework and local development plans

Amendment 128 not moved.

Amendment 41 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 11, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 28, 130 and 29.

Graham Simpson

I will speak for a bit longer to amendment 11, which is about amending the local development plan. It provides:

“A planning authority must amend a local development plan constituted for their district if it becomes apparent that insufficient supply of land is available for housing.”

On the face of it, that might sound a bit top down, but it is vital that councils keep development plans up to date, especially given that we are moving to a 10-year cycle. Recent plan examinations have found significant housing supply shortfalls in areas such as Edinburgh, Fife and Glasgow, which amendment 11 would help to address. That is important for councils because they are often challenged on the issue, and I do not want to see that—indeed, none of us wants to see that. By keeping things up to date, councils will keep themselves safe.

The bill must address the issue of building homes, and an LDP must be updated in the event of a housing supply shortfall. That will best support a plan-led system, which we all want, and the role of the LDP in managing sustainable growth and the benefits that flow from that. It is about keeping things up to date and preventing challenges to councils from developers.

I move amendment 11.

Daniel Johnson

My amendments 28 and 29 are aimed at addressing a fundamental point, which is similar to the one that Graham Simpson outlined. If we are moving to a 10-year cycle, it is vital that the local development plan can be updated.

That should be particularly true of large, publicly owned sites. My view is drawn from direct experience in my constituency, which in recent years has seen three major sites being put up for sale in quick succession, and communities having to mount large vocal campaigns—seemingly, to very little effect. When large public sites are sold, early consultation must be facilitated so that people have a stake up front, prior to the sale. That is important for two reasons. The first is to do with the scale of such sites, and the second is to do with people feeling that they have a stake in their ownership. Frankly, we are talking about sites that are cherished parts of the community, the development of which can radically change the nature and character of communities.

We might look at the example of the Royal hospital for sick children: the local plan, as it stands, says that it is a hospital. The brutal bottom line is that people do not expect the purpose of such large sites to change. That is why I lodged amendments 28 and 29. What they seek is that when planning authorities become aware of a proposal to sell land, they should engage in a consultation process that will update the local development plan so that, given the change in circumstances, it reflects local need. Furthermore, I have sought to clarify matters by stating that the consultation process should be robust, which means that consultation would be not just required but explicitly reflected in the update.

Finally, I have sought to clarify the scope of amendment 28, in that its focus is on major sites. The approach draws on what is in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 and adds the public element. From informal conversations, I understand that there are concerns as to what is implied in proposed new section 20AB(2) of the 1997 act, which amendment 28 would insert, by the reference to a local authority’s becoming “aware”. I draw committee members’ attention to proposed new section 20AB(3), which would require ministers to issue guidance about how public bodies would be required to inform local authorities if they intended to sell sites. That would avoid the possibility of public bodies concealing—through circumstance or intent—their intention to sell so that they can obtain planning permission before they update their plan. The requirement for regulations would ensure that we had a process that prevented that.

Likewise, amendment 28 includes specific requirements on the consultation and provides for ministers to issue guidance in that regard, so that the specific and technical requirements could be thought about more clearly. I point out to members that amendment 29 also stipulates that regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure. How both elements are conducted is vital.

I conclude by saying that development of large publicly owned sites is hugely controversial. My amendments are important in principle and would have beneficial practical impacts. I also point out that having in the bill a strong definition of “consultation” would be useful here, and potentially useful elsewhere.

Kevin Stewart

I agree with the aim of Graham Simpson’s amendment 11 and expect to issue guidance that will explain in more detail the range of circumstances that could trigger a review of a local development plan. Our working groups discussed the issue, and their suggestions included a significant change in local economic circumstances, a shortfall in the number of homes being delivered or the emergence of a local place plan. Those were set out in our technical paper in December 2017.

It would be more useful to look at such triggers in the round, rather than elevate one over all the others. In particular, amendment 11 could lead to perpetual review of local development plans, where the matter of housing land is in dispute and review is required in every case. If plan amendments were to be required in all cases as a matter of law, planning authorities could easily be caught up in continually justifying their land supply. Rather, it is important that local authorities are able to use their judgment and consider the evidence more fully in determining when the time is right to amend plans.

11:15

With regard to amendment 28, members should realise that planning cannot stop or delay sites being sold, and I am not convinced that the issue that amendment 28 covers is a planning issue. Public sites may change ownership without generating a planning issue. As with many other amendments that we have discussed today, amendment 28 would place significant additional administrative duties on planning authorities without necessarily having any relevance to the question of future development. Where change of use that constitutes development arises, the public body would need to engage with planning when it submitted a planning application and meet any associated requirements for consultation at that stage. In any case, local authorities must be able to use their judgment and consider the evidence more fully in determining when the time is right to make plan amendments in their areas.

Setting out the triggers for reviewing local development plans in guidance would allow for further consultation with stakeholders on the different circumstances that are relevant and how those circumstances are defined. It would also enable us to revisit and update those circumstances, if practice requires. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support the amendments in this group. My amendment 130 was consequential to amendment 116, which was not agreed to, so I do not intend to move amendment 130.

Monica Lennon

I want to clarify a remark that I made earlier, because I think that I got ahead of myself. In the discussion on the group on the main issues report and evidence report, I talked about the use of language in the context of Graham Simpson’s amendment 8. In particular, I referred to the use of the word “apparent”. I was actually thinking about amendment 11, which is in the group that we are dealing with now.

In principle, I am supportive of what is proposed, but the guidance would be important. We need to be clear about what would trigger the process. If we are saying that the planning authority “must amend” the plan, we must be clear about the criteria that we have in mind.

I support Daniel Johnson’s amendment 28, which relates to proposals that are submitted for major sites, especially those that are in public ownership—I am thinking about hospitals, in particular, which are a topical issue in Lanarkshire at the moment. Daniel Johnson made a good case for his amendment. The lifetime of local development plans is 10 years, which can seem like a short period but can also seem like a long time. I know that the minister is keen to keep local place plans in the bill, too. We have previously asked what would happen in an area if a number of local place plans were put forward. What would that mean for the local development plan? Could that also trigger an update to the plan? There are some wider issues that remain to be considered.

I accept the principle behind amendment 11, but further clarification is necessary on what we would be asking planning authorities to take responsibility for.

Andy Wightman

I understand the sentiments behind amendment 11, but I am rather concerned about putting into legislation terms such as “apparent” and “insufficient supply”, which are wide open to interpretation and dispute, in describing what would trigger amendment of the local development plan. I would be happy to talk to Graham Simpson and, indeed, the minister about how we might do what is proposed, but I feel uncomfortable about supporting amendment 11 at this stage.

I support the spirit behind Daniel Johnson’s amendment 28. We have large sites that are not anticipated to be changing in any way and then suddenly they change. It would be appropriate to have a more fundamental look at how such land should be used in the future. However, as the minister said, that engages a question about consideration of matters when a planning authority becomes aware that a body is considering a proposal for sale, which has nothing whatever to do with the planning system.

The proposed regulations would not cover big public authorities such as the Ministry of Defence, as it is not a Scottish public authority, yet the Ministry of Defence—as we know—has a programme of land disposal, including some large sites in Lothian and other parts of Scotland.

There is also potential conflict because no provision is made as to what happens if the owner of one of those sites or indeed anybody submits a planning application under the existing local development plan. How would one retrospectively amend the plan? There is not a good fit there.

We need to do something in this area and I commend Daniel Johnson for the work that he has undertaken. I think that a lot of what he proposes could form part of an amendment at stage 3 but I am not minded to support amendment 28 at this stage, because I think that it needs substantial work, which is better done from a blank sheet than from amending a large amendment.

Graham Simpson

I have reflected on what people, particularly the minister, said about amendment 11. The minister seems to accept the principle behind the amendment but believes that the matter would be better dealt with in guidance. He is probably right on that. The words “apparent” and “insufficient” in the amendment are open to interpretation—how would we prove either? I am someone who likes precision in language and I am afraid that amendment 11 is not all that precise, so I will seek leave to withdraw it. However, I welcome the minister’s commitment to having further discussions.

On Daniel Johnson’s amendment 28, I see where he is coming from but I tend to agree with the minister on this—it does not fall under planning. Perhaps he should revisit the matter for stage 3 and have discussions with people.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Convener

Amendment 55, in the name of Alexander Stewart, is grouped with amendments 56, 57, 61, 148, 149, 150, 62, 63, and 151. Amendment 56 is pre-empted by amendment 93 in the group on simplified development zones—procedure. Amendment 57 is pre-empted by amendment 95 in the same group. Amendment 150 pre-empts amendments 62 and 63 in this group. I hope that you have all got that.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I am happy to speak to amendment 55 and the other amendments in the group.

The bill states:

“The Scottish Ministers may direct a planning authority to exercise their power”

to amend a local development plan for their district

“in relation to matters specified in the direction.”

The bill does not currently include a requirement for the publication of directions given by the Scottish ministers to a planning authority under that section. Amendment 55 would insert a requirement for publication and so would ensure increased accountability in relation to the directions given by the Scottish ministers.

Amendment 56 relates to simplified development zones. The bill states:

“The Scottish Ministers may at any time direct a planning authority to ... make a scheme ... or ... alter a scheme in such manner as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.”

Amendment 56 inserts a requirement for publication of those directions. As per amendment 55, it would increase accountability.

I turn to amendment 57, on the Scottish ministers giving a calling-in direction to the planning authority in relation to the authority’s proposal for making an alternative scheme. As per amendments 55 and 56, amendment 57 would introduce increased accountability.

I turn to amendment 61, which concerns the power to transfer functions from a planning authority that is unable to exercise its functions as a result of prohibition under section 24(1). Under the provision, the Scottish ministers may issue a direction allowing for the functions of a planning authority to be exercised by another planning authority or by the Scottish ministers on the planning authority’s behalf. As per amendments 55, 56 and 57, the amendment will increase accountability. Arguably, that is particularly significant as functions can be transferred by a direction that is given by the Scottish ministers to the Scottish ministers themselves.

Amendment 62 concerns the performance of planning authority functions. Directions can be issued in certain circumstances where the Scottish ministers require the planning authority to take such action as is specified in a direction concerning recommendations for a performance assessment report by the Scottish ministers. They may vary or revoke such directions. The amendment clarifies the situation. It states:

“a direction must be in writing.”

The requirement for the direction to be given in writing will ensure publication in written form, and the amendment provides some flexibility by leaving to the discretion of the Scottish ministers the direction in which they may wish to travel.

Amendment 63 clarifies that the direction or variation or revocation of the direction must be published

“as soon as reasonably practicable after it is given”.

That will allow scrutiny of the decisions and the direction at an appropriate time.

I move amendment 55.

Kevin Stewart

This group of amendments responds to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s request that there be a statutory requirement for ministerial directions to be published, including the reasons for making the direction. The committee limited itself to addressing new direction-making powers introduced by the bill. However, there are other direction-making powers already in the 1997 act, and I think that it is more appropriate that they should all be handled in the same way. Amendment 151 therefore inserts a provision that applies to all directions made under the 1997 act. It requires the Scottish ministers to publish the direction and their reasons for making it, and clarifies that publication is to include publication by electronic means.

Amendments 148 to 150 tidy up other parts of the 1997 act to ensure that the requirements are all consistent.

I should explain the exception to the requirements relating to section 265A. That allows the Scottish ministers or the secretary of state to direct that evidence in a planning inquiry may be heard or inspected by specified persons only if it relates to national security or the security arrangements for any premises or property and disclosing it in a public inquiry would be contrary to the national interest. It follows that the direction describing such evidence should not be required to be published.

I appreciate Alexander Stewart’s efforts to implement the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s proposal. However, I suggest that the amendments in my name are a little more comprehensive, and I hope that he will not press amendment 55 and that he will not move his other amendments in the group. I ask the committee to accept the amendments in my name.

Alexander Stewart

I thank the minister for his comments. I note what he said and think that he has made valid points. Therefore, I seek to withdraw amendment 55.

Amendment 55, by agreement, withdrawn.

11:30

The Convener

Amendment 177, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 129, 78, 137, 138, 178, 179, 204, 180, 205, 206, 139 and 87.

Kevin Stewart

Please give me a few seconds, convener—I am a bit behind in the old paperwork.

The bill as introduced would have required planning authorities to “have regard to” local place plans when preparing or amending local development plans. In line with the commitment that I made at stage 1, amendments 129, 177, 137 and 138 seek to replace the requirement to “have regard to” local place plans with a requirement to take them “into account”. As my commitment to lodging such amendments was welcomed by the committee in its stage 1 report, I trust that the committee will welcome these amendments at stage 2.

At stage 1, I also committed to considering amendments that would help to clarify our expectations of planning authorities in dealing with local place plans. There was concern that the bill as introduced would not require a planning authority to respond in any way when a local place plan was submitted. Amendment 139 is intended to address that by requiring planning authorities to maintain a register of local place plans. When a valid local place plan is submitted, a planning authority must place the plan on the register and tell the community body that it has been registered. If the planning authority considers the local place plan not to be valid and as a result does not register it, it must advise the community body of its reasons for that. That will give community bodies the information that they need to correct any problems and get an invalid proposal up to standard.

The Scottish ministers will have powers by regulations to make further provision on the register of local place plans, including the power to prescribe the form and content of the register. The regulations can also provide for when a local place plan may or must be removed from the register and allow for them to expire; otherwise, they could continue indefinitely in effect, even after the same community body had prepared a new plan. A register of local place plans for a local authority area, with a map of the areas that the plans cover, might also assist community bodies in defining the boundaries of their local place plans so that they do not overlap and provide potential developers with a source of information on the community’s aspirations for its future development.

Amendments 178, 179 and 180 are technical adjustments as a consequence of adjustments made under amendment 139.

I can see that Mr Simpson’s amendment 78 has the similar aim of linking planning authorities to the preparation of local place plans. I agree that it would be helpful if, when a planning authority was starting to prepare its local development plan, it let communities know when local place plans would need to be ready in order to be included. Likewise, information on the assistance that is available to communities from planning authorities should be widely advertised.

However, I am concerned that amendment 78, as drafted, might have the implication that local authorities should actively steer the preparation of local place plans and set criteria and deadlines for them. Our intention is for communities to lead the development of local place plans, working with rather than to local authorities. I agree that local authorities could—and probably should—prioritise areas for supporting local place plans, but communities in other areas should still be able to bring forward their plans if they want to, in their own way and in their own time. I will support amendment 78, but I want to look carefully at the wording before stage 3 to ensure that communities retain that pre-eminent role. I am more than happy to have further conversations with Mr Simpson and others on that.

Amendments 204, 205 and 206, in Ms Lennon’s name, misunderstand the role of local place plans. Local place plans are not simply requests to amend the local development plans; a local place plan will be a recognised expression of a community’s ambition for its place, and local place plans will have the status of a material consideration in the planning system, even before they are considered for inclusion in the local development plan.

Amendment 204 would prevent communities from bringing forward local place plans until at least five years after the adoption of the local development plan. Given that there is no restriction on when local development plans can be amended for other reasons, I see no justification for limiting communities in such a way. Communities already prepare things that look a lot like local place plans, when something inspires them, and such a plan should not have to sit on a shelf for five years before it can be recognised.

In preparing a local place plan, reflecting the local development plan’s vision will be an important element. The bill requires community bodies to have regard to the local development plan, and I am not convinced that a separate requirement to set out why the local development plan should be amended is helpful.

Local councillors might act as important intermediaries for community bodies as they seek to prepare or garner support for their local place plans. However, the plan is the community’s plan, and the views of councillors should not have the prominent status in the process that is proposed in amendment 206.

I am a bit disappointed that Mr Wightman lodged amendment 87. In its stage 1 report, the committee said:

“We welcome the statutory underpinning of LPPs as proposed in the Bill.”

I will not rehearse the whole debate on local place plans, but I remind the committee of the intended benefits of such plans. The provisions were introduced to ensure that the plans that communities already prepare have a statutory underpinning, and there has been widespread support for the approach. Many communities and individuals supported the independent panel’s original recommendation. The independent panel took the view that such an approach could make a big difference to the way in which people engage with the planning system. I agree that local place plans could play a significant role not just in front loading engagement but in securing full and positive involvement in planning from a wider range of people and at an earlier stage than is currently the case.

We have proposed other measures to improve engagement in development planning, but local place plans have perhaps the greatest potential to bring the planning system in step with community empowerment in Scotland. There is a need for planning authorities to change the way in which they engage with their communities. Local place plans will provide the maximum opportunity for people to put forward their ideas for planning rather than simply respond to proposals that planning authorities have put forward.

We are all aware of communities that have prepared plans that set out the vision for their areas. Over the summer, I met a number of such communities, which have shown great creativity and skill. Other communities will need more help. I recognise that local place plans should provide opportunities for all communities, not just those that already have access to skills and resources.

I remain convinced that communities should be able to set out a vision for the development of their areas, which should be taken seriously by planning authorities. That chimes with other work on community empowerment. Listening to communities should be the norm in all public bodies.

I urge members not to agree to amendment 87, in Mr Wightman’s name.

I move amendment 177.

The Convener

I call Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 204. I apologise—I should have called Mr Simpson to speak to amendment 78 and other amendments in the group.

Graham Simpson

Thank you, convener. It can be hard to keep up with the process.

I welcome the minister’s support for amendment 78.

The committee spent a good deal of time looking at local place plans. It is fair to say that we were unanimous in our view that they could be a good idea but that not enough thought has been given to how such plans could work in practice. Communities can produce plans for their areas, but councils should “have regard to” such plans. That means that councils could “have regard to” them, and then quickly disregard them. Even the alternative wording, whereby councils must “take account of” such plans, is little better.

The committee is worried that people could spend a lot of time and money producing plans for their areas that ultimately go nowhere. During a visit to Linlithgow, we heard evidence that a plan could be produced and then disregarded by the council. Of course, that would be the council’s right; it would be for the democratically elected body to make the final decision, but why should we raise people’s hopes? Amendment 78 replicates the committee’s recommendation. Again, it is designed to enhance community engagement.

Andy Wightman will speak to amendment 87, which would remove section 9 entirely. I could easily support that but, given that the minister is prepared to engage on improving local place plans, I am prepared not to support amendment 87 if the minister is happy to support my amendment 78. The idea of local place plans has some legs, but we can and need to improve it. We need to have more detailed discussion ahead of stage 3 because, if we want people to be involved in the planning system, we need to mean it and be serious about it. Local place plans could be a good idea, but they need some work.

I appreciate the comments that have been made about my amendment 78, and I hope that it will be agreed to. I will not support amendment 87.

The Convener

I call Monica Lennon—this time—to speak to amendment 204 and other amendments in the group.

Monica Lennon

With local place plans, we get into some of the fundamental issues of why the bill has been introduced. The minister talked about amendments 204 to 206 and seems to feel that local place plans have been misunderstood. To be clear, it is not that I or others “misunderstand” them, but that the Government has put many contradictions in the bill.

We agree that there needs to be a purpose for planning, but members have different views on what that purpose should reflect. I have argued strongly that we should take a rights-based approach to planning, with a real focus on outcomes. We need to be clear about why we are bothering to plan in the first place. Key to all that is a commitment to a plan-led system. The minister talks a lot about front loading and early engagement to ensure that all parts of a community have a stake in a development plan, and we are all trying to achieve that through the bill.

That brings us to local place plans, which are new propositions. What would the role of local place plans be? I support Andy Wightman’s amendment 87, which would take local place plans out of the bill. That is not because I do not want communities to be more involved—I have just argued for more rights for people, including children and young people, and disabled people through access panels and community councils. The minister has argued against, and some committee members have voted against, all those proposals.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

Will the member take a brief intervention?

Monica Lennon

I ask the member to bear with me.

Some committee members joined us only a couple of weeks ago, so I should say that, during stage 1, the committee held long evidence sessions with panels and went outside Parliament to a full-day conference and around different parts of the country. We heard about people’s aspirations to get involved, but they want to be involved in development plans; they do not want there to be a parallel process in which communities get a second chance to update development plans.

We know that local authorities face a lot of financial pressure. The Government has set out in the financial memorandum what the local place plans will cost, but the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland—of which I remind the committee that I am a member—felt that that might be quite a conservative estimate. I hope that all my years of professional experience have not been wasted and that I do not misunderstand what the minister is saying.

11:45

I am with Andy Wightman on this. I am not convinced about the need for local place plans, and I think that the bill could live without them. We all want to focus on getting development plans right. However, if we are to have local place plans, we must do it in a proportionate way, and that is what amendments 204, 205 and 206 are about.

Amendment 204 deals with timescales. We need to look at timescales, because a local development plan might be freshly adopted, only for a proposal for a local place plan to emerge six months or a year later. The minister is arguing that we should streamline the planning process and give certainty to everyone. In particular, he wants the bill to give certainty to developers and investors, who want to have a good handle on risk. If we are to have local place plans, I think that it would be reasonable for them to be introduced at the mid-point in the 10-year lifetime of the local development plan.

Amendment 205 says that reasons should be set out for why the local development plan should be amended, which I think is quite sensible. People need to have that understanding. The proposal chimes with what we talked about earlier in the context of Graham Simpson’s amendments. The lack of an effective or sufficient supply of housing land could be a trigger for amending the LDP. That is an example of a reason that could be set out. There need to be clear parameters.

If local place plans are put forward, they will be put forward at a very local level—at neighbourhood or ward level. The role of local councillors is fundamental. It is not a case of giving local councillors “prominence”, which I think is the word that the minister used; it is a case of making sure that there is proper engagement with local councillors, not all of whom will sit on planning committees.

I will let Annabelle Ewing come in at this point so that I can refer back to my notes.

Annabelle Ewing

I have two points to make on local place plans. The Government is seeking to front-load community engagement, which I think is a good thing. Therefore, I will be happy to support the amendment on that.

I think that Monica Lennon has slightly mischaracterised what the minister said and how some members of the committee have voted. Monica Lennon lodged amendments on the involvement of young people and so on, whereas the minister had a different approach. I felt that the minister’s approach was a better one, including from a drafting perspective, and I was very happy to support it.

Monica Lennon

Thank you for those comments.

I am still unconvinced, as I have been throughout our consideration of the bill. If we want to strengthen the development plan, as I know the minister does, I do not fully understand the role of local place plans in that process. I know that there is a strong desire in communities to reform other parts of the planning process, such as the appeals process, which we will come to at a later stage. Some of the amendments that I have lodged in that regard are strongly tied to the development plan—they are about not allowing people to go off on a tangent and make proposals that do not comply with the development plan; they seek to put in the necessary checks and balances. I know that the minister is not keen on that approach, but I do not think that allowing local place plans to come in at any point in the 10-year cycle will allow things to bed in, either. I remain unconvinced.

I have some concerns about the resourcing of local place plans. Perhaps the minister can remind me of the projected costs, but I think that we are talking about tens of thousands of pounds.

I am not sure that that would be the best use of resources when there is a lot more that we could do to ensure that communities genuinely get involved in the local development plan process and can be empowered to have a voice when the plan needs to be reviewed. However, the triggers would have to be quite clear. We could have a very crowded landscape of local place plans coming forward, and I am not sure that planning authorities will have the resources, time and effort to respond to them in the most positive way.

Andy Wightman

Section 9 of the bill provides that community bodies, as defined, have a statutory right to prepare local place plans, and that planning authorities must take account of them. In our stage 1 report, we concluded that

“As things stand the proposals for LPPs run the risk of being disregarded or ineffective.”

Those who provided written and oral evidence had mixed views, with a common concern being that the time and effort spent on engagement with local place plan creation might be better spent on engaging in the local development plan process.

I have no objection to some of the amendments to enhance local place plans that have been lodged, including those in this group. However, I remain of the view that the case has not been made that such plans are a robust and meaningful contribution to the development planning process. My amendment 87 therefore deletes section 9 of the bill. If further work to address the concerns expressed by the committee, myself and others could be done before stage 3, I would be open to considering supporting the proposal. I feel rather uncomfortable about proposing that we remove a provision that is intended to engage local people in the planning system. However, we should not proceed with a provision if it does not provide a genuine, meaningful process for people, as part of the planning system. I reject the notion that we should do as England has done and make them a formal part of it. On that, I agree with the minister, who highlighted the point in correspondence to the committee. At this point, I am not persuaded that local place plans could make a meaningful contribution, given the task in front of communities and the fact that many disadvantaged communities will be in most need of effective planning but least able to deliver it.

Finally, Monica Lennon’s amendment 204 reveals part of the confusion about the system and what we are trying to do with it. I have some sympathy with having a bit of certainty, but if such plans are to be loose things, I consider that we should leave them loose. I am therefore not minded to support amendment 204. However, I am content to support amendments 205 and 206.

The Convener

I invite the minister to wind up.

Kevin Stewart

I will start by responding to Mr Simpson’s comments on amendment 177. I recognise his concern about local place plans being prepared and not going anywhere. He describes current situations. However, we should note that there is currently no place in the system for local place plans, which colours some folks’ experiences of what goes on at present. I hope that the committee will appreciate the amendments that I have lodged to ensure that there is a clear place for such plans, and a procedure for local authorities to deal with them.

I have made no secret of my view that I want as many folk as possible to be involved in planning. At various points, I have talked at length about trying to intertwine community planning and spatial planning. In many areas of Scotland, many people are involved in community planning. I want to see the same level of involvement in spatial planning. With the best will in the world, I do not think that a huge number of folk will necessarily be clamouring to get involved in development planning, because they are interested in their own places. However, while they might not be happy to deal with development planning, getting involved in local place plans may move them on to those stages. Again, I want to see as many people as possible getting involved at every stage.

Local place plans are designed to give communities a route into the local development plan. As we have heard, communities can put together plans that go nowhere, and I think that what we are doing is designed to deal with that.

Kenneth Gibson

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

Under amendment 306, planning permission may not be granted if a development would require an existing cultural venue to make “unreasonable adjustments” or if the developer failed to include adequate noise mitigation measures in the development application. In addition, there would be a higher test for applications in or near to areas designated as culturally significant zones, as set out in amendment 305. In such zones, there would be a presumption against residential development unless the developer could conclusively demonstrate and prove that existing cultural venues would not be required to make any unreasonable adjustments.

The designation of a culturally significant zone, therefore, would not only implement the agent of change principle in relation to new developments but introduce a degree of protection for venues against a change of occupier in a neighbouring building—for example, where a neighbour who enjoyed live music was replaced by one who objected to it. As the law stands, that new neighbour’s complaints could lead to the venue being closed down, even though the venue was there first. With the designation that I am proposing, however, that would no longer be the case.

Amendment 2 is a consequential amendment enabling culturally significant zones to be taken into account in the preparation of development plans, while amendment 258 would make the Music Venue Trust a statutory consultee on the same basis as the Theatres Trust, which is entitled to comment on any planning application that would affect an existing theatre. Such a move would for the first time acknowledge the cultural significance of live music venues and put them on a par with other cultural venues. I think that that is significant.

The amendments in the name of Adam Tomkins and of the minister introduce general provisions and duties, although Mr Tomkins’s amendment 1 goes further in defining development close to live music venues and other sources of noise as “noise-sensitive development” and prohibits planning authorities from imposing requirements on the noise source in granting planning permission to the development. As a result, amendment 1 is stronger than the amendment in the name of the minister but, in any case, both are eclipsed by amendment 306 in relation to existing cultural venues and by amendment 305 in relation to culturally significant zones. However, because they have wider application, they would still have effect if they were agreed to alongside my own amendments. It is therefore perfectly possible for the committee to vote in favour of my amendments with either one or both of the other amendments in the group, and I encourage committee members to do so.

I move amendment 2.

Kevin Stewart

We need to protect and encourage the music industry’s significant cultural and economic contribution to our society. We have a proud history of producing fabulous performers and great music in Scotland, and we must do what we can to support our established and emerging musical talent to continue that tradition. First of all, though, on Mr Macdonald’s point about people moving house, the fact is that—and I put this very firmly on the record—planning cannot resolve a situation in which a person who moves into a property does not have the same opinion as their predecessor of the noise coming from a neighbouring venue.

With regard to requirements to mitigate the impact of existing noise from the local area on new development sitting with the developer, some very compelling evidence in that respect was produced at stage 1, and I recognise both the strength of feeling and the clear case for acting to support our culture and the benefits of our night-time economy.

As Mr Macdonald has pointed out and as the committee will recall, I announced in February that the Government would seek to embed the agent of change principle in the next national planning framework. To ensure that that was implemented immediately, I also asked the chief planner to write to all authorities, asking them to act on it with immediate effect.

Amendment 181 in my name complements that commitment and takes it a step further by enshrining in legislation the need to thoroughly consider—and, where appropriate, to mitigate—the impact of noise from existing uses when considering planning permission for new development in its vicinity. The amendment addresses noise sources generally, because there are lots of different types of use and development that raise these issues. However, it refers explicitly to the performance of live music to ensure that there is no doubt about the need to protect this great resource for future generations.

My amendment will enable regulations identifying types of uses and developments, and the circumstances to which the agent of change principle will apply. It is important that we do this well and in close consultation with those whom it will affect. Crucially, however, amendment 181 will place a firm duty on the applicant to provide a statement assessing the possible impacts of noise and a firm duty on planning authorities to take full account of the evidence of noise. If granting planning permission, authorities must be clear in their own minds and explain why, within the terms of the application and decision, the likely noise impact would be acceptable.

Amendment 181 will ensure that noise issues are taken seriously and that all possible steps are taken to support development delivery while also protecting our existing uses and businesses, including our highly valued cultural venues. We have shared the amendment with music venue owners and other stakeholders in the music industry, and the feedback has been positive.

I certainly welcome the support that Lewis Macdonald and Adam Tomkins have expressed for the agent of change principle. That said, I am unable to support Adam Tomkins’s amendment 1, although, for the reasons I have just explained, I absolutely support its intention. The fact is that, although the planning system expects appropriate conditions to be attached to a planning permission, conditions cannot require action to be taken by a third party with no direct link to the development or the site. As a result, Mr Tomkins’s amendment does not change the current position.

I also cannot give my support to the amendments in the name of Mr Macdonald, because of their impact on the operation of the planning system and the need for us to maintain the essential mix of uses in our town centres that help bring our places to life. It is difficult to see how amendment 305 on culturally significant zones would work or where they would be brought forward, given that our culturally significant sites and venues are—appropriately, in my opinion—scattered throughout our towns and cities, thereby contributing to the overall vitality and the local economies of the communities in which they sit.

I am also concerned that, especially with the risk of a presumption against some development up to 100m beyond the zone, the designation of culturally significant zones could lead to the clustering of venues and thereby disincentivise other uses that are needed to maintain vibrant communities.

Development plans can already designate land that is linked to policy, as already happens for a range of things, including town centres, so planning authorities can set policies in relation to areas or properties that they want to protect for their cultural significance. Our reforms are about delivering good development and removing unnecessary process from the planning system. Amendments 2 and 305 would add process and uncertainty, with no clear purpose or benefit.

Mr Macdonald’s amendment 258 is unnecessary. If a planning application is made for development on land on which there is a music venue, the venue operators are notified, and they can choose whether to involve the Music Venue Trust. A burden of duty and associated costs is also placed on statutory consultees in the planning system, which would need to be carefully considered. Other statutory consultees are set out in secondary legislation, and I would be more than happy to explore that when revising the relevant regulations.

I am particularly concerned by Mr Macdonald’s amendment 306. It would introduce a blanket requirement to refuse planning permission for residential use in certain circumstances. Proposed new section 37A of the 1997 act refers to

“unreasonable adjustments to the operation of existing cultural venues, facilities or uses”.

It gives no guide as to what sort of adjustment might be unreasonable or what criteria should be used to assess that.

Subsection (2) of proposed new section 37A would, in effect, create a presumption against the granting of planning permission for residential development within 100m of a culturally significant zone. The onus that would be placed on the developer to prove that no unreasonable adjustments were required would seem to be near impossible to meet, given that the amendment does not describe what would be unreasonable, which could be taken to mean any adjustment that the venue’s operator might not wish to see.

Given that a culturally significant zone could comprise a single building and given that, under proposed new section 56A(4) of the 1997 act, a planning authority would be required to make a designation when a valid request was made, there could be a series of overlapping areas that had a presumption of no residential development. If the impact on new development from existing noise sources were to be unacceptable, we would normally expect a refusal, but that decision must be for the planning authority to make, after taking full and fair account of the development plan and all material considerations.

My amendment 181 respects that role of planning authorities and the planning profession in reaching reasoned judgments that are based on the best information, rather than tying their hands. It more appropriately and proportionately ensures that the issues from the impact of noise will be considered effectively before any decision is made on an application for planning permission.

I ask the committee to support my amendment 181, which will embed the agent of change principle in the planning system. I also ask it not to support the amendments in the names of Mr Macdonald and Mr Tomkins.

The Convener

I think that the minister will be delighted to hear that this is the last group of amendments that we will discuss today, so his voice should be okay to hold out for the rest of the day.

Kevin Stewart

I am sure that that will bring great joy to many people.

The Convener

I think that people all around the world are applauding.

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)

I welcome the fact that the agent of change principle now appears to have universal cross-party support. I agree with Lewis Macdonald that the question is how we deliver that in legislation. It is imperative to deliver it in primary legislation and not merely in regulations or guidance, although regulations and guidance must be in accord with what primary legislation says about the agent of change.

12:15

I also welcome and very much agree with Lewis Macdonald’s comment that members of the committee can support all the Opposition amendments—the amendments in my name and those in his name, which overlap, to some extent, and complement one another.

The agent of change principle shifts responsibility for mitigating the impact of noise from an existing music venue to the developer who is moving into the area. As Mr Macdonald said, the issue has become a particular problem in our city centres, as a result of the regeneration of city centres as places in which to live. I declare an interest, as someone who lived in Glasgow city centre for four and a half years and could certainly hear a lot of noise at the time.

The principle means, in essence, that those who bring about change must take responsibility for its impact—it is really as simple as that. The key point is chronology. We want to avoid a situation in which an existing music venue business finds that, as a result of a developer moving into the area, fresh noise mitigation measures must be put in place at the venue’s expense.

As the law stands, that is exactly what is happening: responsibility for managing and mitigating the impact of noise on neighbouring residents and businesses lies with the business or activity that is making the noise, regardless of how long the noise-generating business or activity has been operating in the area.

As members know, the current system is causing a crisis in the live music industry in Glasgow, in particular. It is threatening the very existence of King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut and the Sub Club—two of the principal live music venues in Glasgow city centre. Just last week, I was at a meeting that the Night Time Industries Association hosted in Glasgow, at which concerns about the issue were raised.

KSG Acoustics, which advises King Tut’s and the Sub Club with regard to the legal action that both venues are reluctantly having to take, has explained that it supports the Opposition amendments in this group but not the Government amendment, amendment 181, which it thinks does not go far enough.

Amendment 1, in my name, is designed to ensure that the spirit of agent of change, which is to ensure that venues and new developments can co-locate—this is in no sense an attempt to restrict the planning system—is in primary legislation in Scots law. As my remarks have made plain, amendment 1 was lodged primarily to address concerns from the live music industry that the current system is inflicting escalating costs on music venues. However, the amendment is deliberately broad in scope, so that the underlying principle can apply in other sectors.

The Music Venue Trust, which gave evidence to the committee during its stage 1 consideration of the bill, supports all the Opposition amendments in the group but does not support Scottish Government amendment 181, which, in the trust’s view, could fail to deliver the desired policy outcome. With respect to the minister, I share that view.

I have some concerns about whether all the amendments in Lewis Macdonald’s name are strictly necessary and whether some of them go too far in some respects. In particular, amendment 306 has the potential to obstruct the planning system, by imposing a blanket ban on residential development in town centres where there are cultural venues—or clusters of such venues. I heard what the minister had to say about that.

The starting assumption in amendment 306, if I have read it correctly, is that an application for a new development must be refused if the proposed development is in or within 100m of a cultural zone, unless proved otherwise. I think that such a provision could be tweaked at stage 3, so, notwithstanding my reservations, I urge the committee to agree to amendment 306 at this stage. We can then revisit it and consider whether the wording needs to go quite as far as it does.

With respect, I think that there are two problems with amendment 181, in Mr Stewart’s name. First, it does not do enough to put the principle of agent of change in primary legislation; it relies too much on regulations. Secondly, as the Music Venue Trust has said, amendment 181 does not make transparent exactly how firm duties are to be placed on developers to provide a noise impact assessment at their own cost or undertake mitigation measures themselves.

Those are our reservations about amendment 181. If amendment 181 were to be agreed to, the provision could be used against live music venues such as King Tut’s and the Sub Club, in the city that I represent.

For all those reasons, I urge members of the committee to support all the Opposition amendments in the group and to reject amendment 181.

Lewis Macdonald

The minister said that planning cannot deal with a change of neighbour. I encourage the minister to be more ambitious than that. Planning can and should reflect our priorities as a society and as a Parliament. This is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate what our priorities are and to put them into effect.

We need to go beyond simply reminding planning authorities of their existing duties or requiring reasons to be laid out in a decision notice. We need to seek a change in the culture and the practical experience of music venues over recent years, which is that the planning system is, in effect, working to close venues down. Therefore, we need to put in place adequate provision and protection to ensure that that ceases to happen.

The minister said that the operators of music venues welcome amendment 181. It is important to say that every step that the Government has taken—there have been two or three different steps in the past six months—are all steps in the right direction but this is an urgent situation and short steps in the right direction are not enough; we need a change in the basis of the law and a change in the basis on which we go forward.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to work with Mr Macdonald and Mr Tomkins to get this right for stage 3. I think that there are some real difficulties in some of these amendments, which could create areas where development would not take place. That is probably not the intention but that is what could happen as a result of Mr Macdonald’s amendments.

I reiterate what I said previously—I understand the difficulties that there are in certain places in relation to live music venues. That is why I moved as quickly as I did and wrote to planning authorities about the issue. However, planning cannot deal with folk moving into existing properties—existing housing—who may not have the same opinions as those folks who were in those houses before them. We have to recognise that and also let folk out there understand that this applies to new development and not to what already exists. I think that some folk out there are a little bit confused about what this is about.

Lewis Macdonald

I hope that the amendments in my name will remove that confusion by addressing the issue of new development and the issue of changes in an existing neighbourhood.

It is important to be more ambitious than the minister is being in seeing what the planning system can do, because the planning system can protect live music venues. Adam Tomkins mentioned the case of King Tut’s. The minister will know of other cases, in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, and I am sure that there are others across the country. We need a provision that protects those venues against development if we know that the development would lead to the closure of those venues. That is the seriousness of the situation that live music venues currently face and the reason for taking action in the way that we have described.

The minister was concerned that amendment 306 did not define “unreasonable adjustments”. The term is not defined but the expectation is that the Government will introduce the necessary regulations, as under any other primary legislation, in order to define that term closely and precisely.

Graham Simpson

We have heard concerns from the minister and Mr Tomkins that one of the perhaps unintended consequences of amendment 306 is that it could prevent people from living in these culturally significant zones. Like Mr Tomkins, I also used to live in a city centre—in Newcastle. Within a stone’s throw of my flat was a dance studio and just around the corner was a night club; I enjoyed living there. I am sure that such a consequence is not your intention, Mr Macdonald, but are you prepared to look into that for stage 3?

Lewis Macdonald

I certainly welcome Adam Tomkins’s comments on how to address the issue at stage 3. I prefer his proposition, which is to agree these amendments today and come back at stage 3 to look at any refinement that is required, to the minister’s proposal, which is to not take forward the amendments and then trust that he will come up with something that goes some of the way towards what we seek to do.

The intention is not to prevent people from living in culturally significant zones; the intention is to signal that someone who, for example, likes live music choosing to occupy a flat next to King Tut’s is good, but someone who wants King Tut’s closed down choosing to do so is not. That is the nature of the choices that have to be made. I will press my amendments in the group, because there would be significant benefits to providing, in primary legislation, a clear legal basis on which councils and planning authorities could protect live music venues. That is what is required and it is the right thing to do.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 129 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 129 agreed to.

Amendment 203 not moved.

Amendment 28 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 disagreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 130 not moved.

Section 8—Development plan

Amendment 67 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 67 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 67 agreed to.

Amendment 68 not moved.

Amendments 131 and 132 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 133 not moved.

Amendment 134 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendments 135 and 136 not moved.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9—Local place plans

Amendment 78 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 206 agreed to.

Amendment 139 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 87 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 87 disagreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

The Convener

That is the end of this stage of stage 2. I thank the minister, his officials and the MSPs who attended today’s meeting.

Day 4 of stage 2 will take place on 24 October, when the committee’s target will be to get to the end of part 3 of the bill. Any further amendments that relate to the bill up to the end of part 3 should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday 4 October, due to the October recess.

12:32 Meeting continued in private until 12:52.

26 September 2018

Fourth meeting on amendments

Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting 24 October 2018:

Fourth Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2

Fourth Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2 (24 October 2018)

Fourth meeting on amendments transcript

The Convener (James Dornan)

I welcome everyone to the 28th meeting in 2018 of the Local Government and Communities Committee. I remind everyone present to turn off their mobile phones. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, members may use tablets during the meeting.

The first agenda item is day 4 of stage 2 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, and his accompanying officials. MSPs who are not members of the committee but have lodged amendments to the bill will be in attendance today; they are very welcome.

Section 10—Simplified development zone schemes

The Convener

Amendment 232, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is grouped with amendments 233 to 235, 237 to 240, 245, 249, 251 to 255, 279 to 283 and 285 to 289.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

These amendments will rename “Simplified development zones” as “Masterplan consent areas”. There appears to have been some confusion around this part of the bill. There is a misconception that planning permission is not needed for those areas. In particular, the committee heard at stage 1 that the use of the word “simplified” was being interpreted by some people as deregulating rather than strengthening planning.

I want to support and encourage more public sector-led development, and the mechanism puts planning authorities in the lead in planning their places, rather than having them just react to developers’ proposals. Early and effective community engagement and a strong design-led approach to delivering quality development will be required in all cases. This is neither a developers’ charter nor a bid to lower standards. Indeed, the previous convener noted that the evidence that the committee has heard is that the proposal sounds just like enhanced masterplanning. It is a master plan and it will give up-front consent for the type of development that the planning authority considers most appropriate for an area. “Masterplan consent areas” is therefore a more accurate name, which should remove any misunderstanding about what we are trying to achieve here.

I move amendment 232.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

This is pretty straightforward. On the face of it, it might look like there is not much point in changing the name, but nor is there any great objection to it, therefore we will support the amendments.

Amendment 232 agreed to.

Amendments 233 to 235 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 236, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 284.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to speak to amendments 236 and 284. They respond to a point made by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1 and they follow up on a commitment that I made to reconsider the matter.

To avoid any further confusion around the terminology for those and the following amendments, I will be referring to masterplan consent areas when discussing provisions relating to simplified development zones in the bill.

The bill, as introduced, would have allowed a scheme for these areas to disapply the normal controls on the display of advertisements and apply the controls set out in the scheme instead. However, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee was concerned that that would remove parliamentary oversight of the rules of the display of adverts. In response to those concerns, amendment 236 removes that provision.

I want planning authorities to lead and incentivise development through the up-front consideration and granting of a range of consents, reducing uncertainty for all. We heard from Renfrewshire Council, which prepared Scotland’s first town centre simplified planning zone, that despite the scheme granting planning permission, the on-going need to apply separately for advertisement consent within the area can cause delay and reduce certainty and confidence among investors.

I maintain that it would be useful and proportionate if a masterplan consent area scheme could include scope to grant advertisement consent in addition to the range of other consents.

Section 183 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 already allows for regulations to make different provision for different areas when it comes to advertisement controls. Amendment 284 would add masterplan consent areas into that non-exhaustive list of types of area for which different types of provision can be made. The amendment would allow the existing control of advertisements regulations to be amended to make special provision for masterplan consent areas, so that the planning authority could consent to advertisements through a scheme within the parameters permitted by the regulations.

Planners would apply the same thinking and scrutiny that would otherwise be applied to the consideration of individual applications, and provide a more holistic, streamlined consenting framework within the scheme. This approach addresses the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s concern about a loss of parliamentary oversight, because any future amendments to the control of advertisements regulations in relation to these areas would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I am grateful to the committee for highlighting this issue and I ask it to support amendments 236 and 284.

I move amendment 236.

Graham Simpson

As convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I welcome the minister’s amendment.

Amendment 236 agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 295 and 20. Amendment 20 is pre-empted by amendment 156 in the group on simplified development zones: land which may or may not be included.

Graham Simpson

I offer my apologies as I may take a while on this, but amendment 12 is important and is part of an important grouping.

Initially, the bill had no mechanism for capturing any land value uplift, which is an issue that the committee looked at very closely at stage 1. An article in Planning Resource this month said:

“More than eight in ten planning and development professionals believe Scotland’s new planning bill will fail to provide a system capable of improving housing and infrastructure delivery, according to a new survey.”

The omission of the reference to land value capture was, in my view, a clear missed opportunity. In the Conservative manifesto for the 2017 general election, we said that communities and public authorities should,

“benefit from the increase in land value”

achieved through gaining planning permission. Ruth Davidson has given a couple of speeches that back the idea, and she has argued that Scotland should build a new generation of new towns to ease the country’s housing shortage.

My amendment 12 would provide a powerful tool to enable local authorities to build new communities as well as extensions to, or significant developments within, existing settlements. I have lodged the amendment to provide that, where a planning authority establishes a masterplan consent area, it may include provision for compulsory purchase. The amendment sets out the basics of how the purchase price is to be fixed and requires ministers to set out the rest of the detail about the process by way of regulations. That would include how any provision of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 is to be disapplied or modified for the purposes of this scheme.

Amendment 20 simply provides that, where regulations are made by ministers, the regulations should be subject to affirmative procedure.

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has stated that there is potential for land value capture to be a useful tool for councils. Shelter and the Adam Smith Institute have supported such a reform. Councils would be able to invest money that is gained through their own decisions to grant planning permission in affordable housing, new roads and better infrastructure. We could avoid wrangles when deciding who pays how much and for what—wrangles that often hold up development. We could deliver varied places, unlock land for smaller builders and self-builders—the focus of an amendment that was debated previously—and we could deliver more houses and more affordable houses. It is genuinely exciting but it is far from new: we should learn from the past.

09:45

The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 enabled the state to acquire land at levels close to existing use value until it was replaced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 and by new compensation arrangements in the Land Compensation Act 1961—and the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963.

Alongside powers provided within the New Towns Act 1946, the 1947 act enabled the establishment, through development corporations, of post-war new towns. The new towns programme ultimately led to the establishment of 32 communities for 2.8 million people and successfully paid back its entire borrowing for the delivery of the towns in 1999. I live in one of those towns, East Kilbride, which was the first in Scotland.

Analysis by the Centre for Progressive Policy indicates that, across England, land that is awarded planning permission is worth more than 275 times the agricultural value, and that it generated £18 billion in increased land values in 2016-17. In England, the state collected around £5 billion through section 106 agreements, the community infrastructure levy and public land sales, leaving private landowners and their intermediaries with pre-tax profits of around £13 billion. During the stage 1 debate on the bill, I said that planning is often all about money, and those figures illustrate that point very well.

Importantly, amendment 12 in my name would provide for

“compensation that is payable in respect of land purchased under this section.”

That is only fair. I know that Andy Wightman is a long-standing supporter of land value capture, but amendment 295 in his name does not include a provision for compensation and that does not seem fair to me. Although the Scottish Conservatives will therefore not support his amendment, I accept the principles behind what Mr Wightman is trying to achieve. I guarantee that we can work together ahead of stage 3 and encourage the Scottish Government to get on board with us if amendment 12 is agreed to. We cannot keep kicking this can down the road.

The issue has been examined across the United Kingdom. Just last month, a report of the UK Parliament’s Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee concluded that extra funding for new local infrastructure and affordable housing could be raised by reforms to how the increase in value of land that results from public policy decisions is captured. The committee argued that there is scope for raising additional revenue through consideration of new mechanisms for land value capture, and reform of the way in which councils can compulsorily purchase land.

The committee’s report also highlighted the success, which I have already mentioned, of the first generations of new towns that acquired land at or near to existing use value and captured uplifts in land value to invest in new infrastructure. They have called for reform of such powers through amendment of the Land Compensation Act 1963, which would lead to a much-needed boost in house building.

Last week, The Sunday Telegraph reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may announce such proposals in next week’s budget, but we do not need to wait for England to move on this or for the Scottish Land Commission to report—Scotland can be at the forefront of this radical shift in public policy. I believe that amendment 12 would help to transform the landscape of residential and economic development in Scotland and could play an important part in a radical new planning system. I urge the committee to support it.

I move amendment 12.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

Graham Simpson has articulated the case for land value capture. The Scottish Greens have a manifesto commitment to secure reform to the planning acts to allow local authorities to acquire land at its existing use value. I am also aware, as Graham Simpson has said, that this was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party in the 2017 general election. It was also a recommendation of the UK Labour Party in its recent white paper on housing. It is a topic of growing interest among policy makers and I echo Graham Simpson in reminding members that a provision enabling it was introduced in section 48 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, which was repealed in 1959.

In the UK, 90 per cent of new housing is built by speculative volume builders. That is a very strange model of house building compared to those in the rest of the continent, where builders compete first for land. They have to pay the uplift value, which is ultimately transferred on to house buyers. Typically, 30 to 50 per cent of the costs of new housing is land value, created entirely by the public, through planning authorities acting in the public interest in granting planning consent. If we eliminate that process, we can invest 30 to 50 per cent more in higher-quality, longer-lasting, larger, more energy-efficient homes, or build more at the same cost. As Mr Simpson pointed out, our sister committee in the House of Commons conducted an inquiry into this topic in September this year and made recommendations.

Amendment 295 is my version of a provision that is similar to amendment 12. Like amendment 12, my amendment restricts the deployment of a land value capture mechanism to masterplan consent areas. This is not because I think that it should be so restricted—it should be far more widely available—but because I am conscious that in reintroducing provisions that were last enforced 50 years ago, there is significant risk of causing uncertainty and confusion in the land market. Therefore, the need to have a proportionate approach at this stage is critical.

The establishment of masterplan consent areas creates the ideal environment within which to reintroduce the concept in a controlled and manageable way.

I carried out a consultation on this proposal during May and June. I received 23 responses of which 11 were in favour, nine were opposed and three had mixed views. Those who were supportive included Planning Democracy, Rural Housing Scotland, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing. Those who were against the proposal included the Scottish Property Federation, Homes for Scotland, Persimmon Homes and Scottish Land & Estates.

I attended a meeting of the compulsory purchase specialists and met the authors of a recent Scottish Land Commission paper on the topic. As a consequence, I developed an amendment that is more tightly drawn than amendment 12 and was informed by my consultation, from which two key principles emerged.

The first is that the existing use value of any land in a masterplan consent area must be established and known at the point at which the land is so designated. In Germany this is described as the land price freeze mechanism. To leave the valuation until some years hence, as amendment 12 does, would risk interfering with the legitimate expectations of the landowner, who may have undertaken preparatory works, with the attendant risk of a legal challenge under article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights.

The second principle is that the provisions are made available only to meet the housing needs of the community and to uphold the human right to housing. Those concerns are reflected in my amendment 12. This makes the public interest clear and provides a robust defence under the public interest exemption in article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights.

I am aware that the Scottish Land Commission is currently undertaking work in this area. However, I do not know when the next legislative opportunity will arise, or whether I will be around to take advantage of it.

This is a planning provision. This is a planning bill. We have a planning bill about once a decade. Both amendment 12 and amendment 295 represent a tightly focused and proportionate measure that would allow local authorities to use the power in defined circumstances in the public interest. As Graham Simpson has mentioned, that has the potential to transform the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, in rural as well as urban areas.

As duplication would arise in the bill were amendments 12 and 295 both to be agreed to, I will not move amendment 295. That is on the understanding that Graham Simpson agrees—I think that I have already heard him do that—to discuss how his amendment 12 can be further amended before stage 3 to accommodate the principles that I outlined earlier. Those principles arose out of consultation with interested parties and, in my view, are essential to a workable, fair, proportionate and legally defensible mechanism to capture land value.

Kevin Stewart

Mr Simpson said that there is no mechanism for land value capture in the bill. There is a mechanism. The infrastructure levy is a mechanism for capturing an element of land value and the bill also seeks to clarify the use of section 75 planning obligations. Both amendments apparently seek to require ministers to make provision in regulations on the compensation payable for compulsory purchase. The intention behind the amendments, shown by their headings, may be to make provision for the compulsory acquisition of land, but they do not actually use the word “compulsory” in the substantive provisions. The sections that these amendments seek to introduce would, in fact, operate to regulate the voluntary acquisition of land only in certain situations.

However, as I recognise that the intention is to create rights of compulsory purchase, I will consider the amendments on the basis that that is what the proposed provisions would do.

The compulsory purchase of land is a very serious issue. Since the 18th century, the process for compulsory purchase in the United Kingdom has been almost exclusively laid down in detail in primary legislation, to make sure that the power is not abused. I see no reason to change that.

The Scottish Government is interested in the concept of land value capture and that is why we have asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate options for capturing uplifts in value in Scotland more effectively. The commission is due to report back in spring 2019.

Graham Simpson mentioned new towns quite a lot in his speech and the Scottish Land Commission has recently carried out a study of previous attempts to capture land value uplifts. Although new towns were a successful approach, the 1947 development charge was not successful and, in fact, it discouraged development. That is why we need to look at this area very carefully indeed.

The proposal that is in front of us would ignore the on-going work and the range of options for land value capture that could potentially be considered in Scotland. There is a range of ways of attempting land value capture, and changing the compulsory purchase compensation rules is only one of them.

Once we have the Scottish Land Commission’s report, we will consider whether we should move towards consultation and the preparation of legislation. If the commission concludes that changes to compulsory purchase compensation would be helpful, it may be possible to combine changes to compulsory purchase with the proposed bill on compulsory sale orders that is being considered for later in this parliamentary session.

There are a number of technical deficiencies in amendments 12 and 295 that I consider make them unacceptable in their current form. For example, Andy Wightman’s amendment 295 would require the local authority to value all the land in the area to which the scheme relates, not just the land that the local authority proposes to purchase. There are issues with the valuation methods contained in amendment 12 that could, in some cases, lead to higher compensation than would be payable at present.

I also question why the rules would apply only in a masterplan consent area: what justification is there for paying less than market value in this area and not in another? If a landowner inside the masterplan consent area will potentially receive less for their land than one outside the area, is that fair? Surely it will lead to more opposition to masterplan consent areas, when they are meant to be a collaborative, positive tool that can support and speed up much-needed development. One of the key criticisms of the current compulsory purchase system is that it is too complex, with multiple overlapping processes. How does it help to add another one?

Beyond those specific issues, there is a more significant principle at stake. I recognise the rights to housing that Mr Wightman has cited, but rights can never be considered in isolation. The rights to housing have to be balanced with the rights to property that are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and, of more direct relevance to the powers of this Parliament, in the European convention on human rights, with which legislation of this Parliament must be compatible.

The courts have long held that compulsory purchase is compatible with the ECHR, but only where exercised proportionately and when owners receive fair compensation. As a general rule, the taking of property without payment of an amount that is reasonably related to its value would not be justifiable under the ECHR. In the absence of special justification, fair compensation would be expected to equate to the market value of the land taken. Although there may possibly be scope for making changes to the rules for assessment of land compensation in certain circumstances, this will require very careful scrutiny and justification.

10:00

Both amendments imply that the compensation that is payable in such circumstances will be less than is currently considered to be market value, and there must be real doubt about whether compulsory purchase along the lines proposed would be compatible with the ECHR. If it were not compatible, the amendments would be outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that committee members will take that issue very seriously.

In short, it is premature to attempt to change the rules for compensation for compulsory purchase through amendments to the bill without proper analysis and consultation. No formal public consultation has taken place on this key issue. Mr Wightman has mentioned some of the views that were expressed in his own consultation, but he has not published the full results of that consultation.

Andy Wightman

I would like to put it on the record that I will publish my findings.

Kevin Stewart

That is fine, but they are not published yet.

The Scottish Land Commission, the Scottish Law Commission, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and Homes for Scotland all agree with my analysis and have expressed concerns about the proposals. The Scottish Compulsory Purchase Association has also written to the committee, setting out its concerns in some detail.

The Scottish Government has asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate the options that exist for more effective land value capture, and it needs the time and space to complete its work. I therefore ask Mr Simpson not to press his amendment 12 and Mr Wightman not to move his amendment 295.

The Convener

I invite Graham Simpson to wind up.

Graham Simpson

I do not have much to add but I hear what the minister is saying and I am prepared to speak to him afterwards. On this occasion, however, I will press amendment 12.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 295 not moved.

Amendments 237 to 240 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 241, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 242, 13, 243, 244, 246 to 248, 250, 293 and 156. I point out the following pre-emptions: agreement to amendment 242 would pre-empt amendment 13, and agreement to amendment 156 would pre-empt amendment 20.

Kevin Stewart

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee suggested that the types of land that may not be included in an SDZ or a masterplan consent area should be set out in the bill. I accepted that point and undertook to lodge an amendment to that effect, including a power to add or remove entries by regulation. My amendments in the group fulfil that commitment.

I want to see masterplan consent areas being used in a wide range of circumstances. I also want to make these provisions as clear and as easy to follow as possible, rather than adding complexity. Amendment 250 provides restrictions on world heritage sites and their buffer zones, European sites as defined in the amendment, sites of special scientific interest, national scenic areas, Ramsar sites, marine protected areas and places covered by orders under part 2 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Those are all international or national designations. That is clear, easy to understand and the appropriate level of restriction to set in primary legislation.

It is unlikely that planning authorities will want to introduce masterplan consent areas in those designated areas, but I am happy to provide clarity on the issue to remove any doubt and avoid any confusion. We have worked with the relevant agencies—Historic Environment Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage—and they agree with my approach.

I want to see the mechanism used more widely and confidently to promote good placemaking. Significant restrictions in locally designated areas would continue to curtail the scope for planning authorities to proactively plan for the right kinds of development in their places, so I am not proposing to include local designations within the restrictions in the bill. That means that we can give authorities the opportunity to decide for themselves what works best in their area.

On amendment 13, in the name of Graham Simpson, I have some serious concerns about preventing masterplan consent areas in conservation areas and green-belt land. Preventing the designation of masterplan consent areas in conservation areas would take away that opportunity for planning authorities to actively plan for and support town centre investment and regeneration. Many local authorities may want to use that approach to deliver on the town centre first principle.

For example, schemes could allow for certain changes of use within town centres, helping vacant units come back into productive use. At stage 1, the committee heard evidence from Petra Biberbach of Planning Aid Scotland that there are currently more than 30,000 empty homes, most of which are in town centres. She emphasised the need for a more imaginative approach to unlock them and to repopulate our town centres.

I know that some authorities are already keen to follow the example of Renfrew town centre and use the provisions for simplified planning zones to support their town centres but are unable to do so because of current restrictions on SPZs in conservation areas.

If the committee supports amendment 13, it would significantly limit the potential of masterplan consent areas to make a difference to our town centres and to support their vitality and vibrancy.

Amendment 13 would also restrict masterplan consent areas in the green belt. Scottish planning policy makes it clear that green-belt designation is a tool for local authorities to direct development to suitable locations. Local authorities can set out uses that are appropriate within the green belt, such as the reuse of historic agricultural buildings, or recreational uses that are compatible with an agricultural or natural setting. Recently, we have been approached by a local enterprise that sees the potential in the reuse of steadings to support the rural microeconomy. A masterplan consent area could facilitate the types of developments that are appropriate within green belts, but that opportunity would be lost if there were a full restriction in green belts.

It is important to provide clarity in the bill on the scope of masterplan consent areas, but any restrictions should be set at the right level and not limit the ability of local authorities to proactively and positively plan good-quality development and investment in their local areas. I would be happy to discuss the issue further with Mr Simpson before stage 3 to ensure that we get the detail right.

I move amendment 241.

Graham Simpson

I welcome the minister’s comments. Amendment 13 simply sets out to replicate the current position on simplified planning zones and where they cannot be set up. The Government’s amendment 250 places similar restrictions on where such areas can be set up. That amendment is okay and, in some respects, it goes further than amendment 13. However, it does not include green-belt and conservation areas. Having considered what the minister has said today and having spoken to stakeholders and others, I am minded to agree with the Government, so I will not move amendment 13. I welcome the fact that, again, Mr Stewart has responded to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I will support amendment 250. We will also support Government amendments 241 to 248, along with amendment 293, which can best be described as technical.

Amendment 156 appears to be a tidying-up exercise. It seeks to roll together regulation-making powers that will be dealt with under the affirmative procedure, and we support it, too.

Andy Wightman

Amendments 13 and 250 seek to implement the recommendation that the committee made in its stage 1 report that the bill should specify where masterplan consent areas cannot be designated. In principle, I have no objection to that, but I do not agree that the list of such designated sites should include national scenic areas.

National scenic areas include settlements where there is a need for more affordable housing. Those areas include—I have the map in front of me—large parts of Wester Ross, Assynt, Sutherland, the whole of Harris, south Lewis, Kintail, Loch Shiel and a quarter of the Cairngorms national park. As the minister is aware, SNH has a consultative role when a development of more than five houses is proposed in a national scenic area, but it does not have a consultative role when any such proposal is specifically provided for in the local development plan. The minister will probably be aware of the recent controversy over affordable housing in north Skye; he will also be aware that circular 9/1987 contains the relevant rules in that regard.

It is my view that masterplan consent areas could play an important role in providing rural housing, especially where the land value capture provisions are made use of, but also where they are not. To exclude them by law from being available in national scenic areas is illogical when development can already take place under existing planning provisions. In many areas, masterplan consent areas have the potential to provide a more effective means of providing affordable rural housing. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 12 and 250. I would welcome further discussion with the minister on the points that I have made, with a view to lodging a possible amendment at stage 3 to remove national scenic areas from the list of designated sites.

Kevin Stewart

I am grateful to Mr Simpson for indicating that he will not move amendment 13, and I would be more than happy to have further discussions with Mr Wightman and others on national scenic areas, so that we get the provisions absolutely right for stage 3.

Amendment 241 agreed to.

Amendment 242 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 243 to 250?

Andy Wightman

Yes.

The Convener

The Convener

Amendment 296, in the name of Monica Lennon, is grouped with amendments 297 to 301.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I welcome the minister’s comments in his opening remarks on simplified development zones, which are being reframed as “masterplan consent areas”. My view is that the use of masterplan consent areas has to be as transparent as possible. They should support the local development plan as the foundation of a plan-led system. The best way for that to happen is through designating masterplan consent areas during the formulation of the local development plan. If that is not possible, the local development plan should be amended to include any new masterplan consent area.

We have to be careful not to undermine the local development plan-making process, especially when we are all trying to increase community involvement. It is right that SDZs, or masterplan consent areas, align with the local development plan. My amendments 296 to 298 would restrict the ability of planning authorities to produce SDZs or masterplan consent areas “At any time”.

I have been a bit sceptical about SDZs during our scrutiny of the bill. Simplified planning zones have been completely underused—I think that we have heard of two examples. Masterplan consent areas have the potential to be a very good tool, but they will be resource intensive, and I hope that that point will be considered.

I move amendment 296, and I will move amendments 297 and 298.

The Convener

Adam Tomkins was going to speak to amendment 299. Will you be speaking on his behalf, Graham?

Graham Simpson

Yes, if that is okay, convener. He is at another committee at the moment.

Mr Tomkins lodged amendments 299 to 301 in this group. His amendment 299 would ensure that there is a regular period for a planning authority’s evaluation of whether a masterplan consent area would be beneficial to an area. Basically, that would ensure that the authority must take a look at the matter every five years. I think that that is entirely sensible, so we will obviously support it.

Amendments 300 and 301 go with amendment 299. Amendment 300 simply sorts out some rather woolly drafting. I will therefore be moving those amendments.

Monica Lennon’s amendments 296 to 298 seem fairly straightforward and should help to improve the process, so we will support them.

Kevin Stewart

Amendments 296 to 298, in the name of Monica Lennon, would greatly damage the appeal of masterplan consent areas and restrict their use. I cannot support that.

Throughout the process of planning reform, I have been clear that we need to strengthen the ability of planning in Scotland to deliver good-quality development. Masterplan consent areas could be a powerful tool to support the delivery of local development plans, but I do not believe that their preparation can or should be tied to the local development plan preparation cycle. There are several reasons for that.

First, masterplan consent areas are a delivery mechanism, so they should be prepared within the plan’s delivery period. Planning officers from Glasgow and Edinburgh told the committee that the mechanism could support the delivery of the development plan. I agree with that. It follows that, for that to be done effectively, there has to be a plan in place first.

Ms Lennon’s amendments would mean that preparation of masterplan consent areas would need to be twin-tracked with the preparation of the local development plan. That could lead to authorities wasting effort and valuable resources in preparing a scheme to support a proposed allocation that may not end up being included in the final plan. That would be costly and ineffective, and it would be a real and damaging deterrent to the use of the mechanism.

For many sites, only once the local authority is into the delivery phase of the plan cycle will the need for a masterplan consent area emerge. For example, if nothing is happening on a site that is part of an area’s spatial strategy and land supply, the authority might want to prepare a scheme to support its deliverability and to attract investors.

Secondly, we need to ensure that masterplan consent areas can be brought into play to react to changing circumstances in any area. Ms Lennon’s amendments would limit the ability of planning authorities to respond quickly and decisively to significant events. For example, if a major local employer was going into administration and its site was threatened with closure or was closed, the local authority should be able to step forward and take action, at that point, to support jobs for its people in its area. The authority could set out alternative uses for the site, putting in place conditions for the right kind of development, protecting and enhancing the local economy, and working with the community to provide a new vision for that place. If Ms Lennon’s amendments were supported, the authority would have to hold back, possibly for years, while it got its local development plan under way.

Thirdly, the amendments could place significant pressures on local authority resources. We have to be careful about not overloading the development plan process with full technical appraisals. Up-front work will be required from planning authorities to prepare masterplan consent area schemes. We want to allow them the time and the space to do that properly, when they are not in the midst of working on their local development plan. We have seen the implications of that in each of the pilots that we are supporting, where the local authority planners have been trying to progress their scheme at the same time as they have been preparing their local development plan. That has led to resourcing issues and has impacted on timescales.

We need to learn from those very real experiences. Both the Renfrew town centre and the Hillington Park SPZs were prepared outwith the development plan process. They were fully consulted on but did not attract objections. To delay such schemes by waiting for the local development plan is not necessary and would, in turn, delay investment in places around Scotland, such as the £25 million that the Hillington Park SPZ has generated for its local area.

The preparation of schemes must not be limited to twin tracking them with the preparation of the local development plan. I strongly urge the committee to reject Monica Lennon’s amendments to ensure that masterplan consent areas are properly considered and taken forward by planning authorities at the most appropriate time and in a way that can have the greatest positive impact.

I turn now to Mr Tomkins’s amendments 299 to 301. The bill includes a duty, in paragraph 5 of schedule 5A, on authorities to publish a statement setting out how they have considered in which parts of their area it would be desirable to make a masterplan consent area scheme, in order to bring that type of mechanism further to the fore in authorities’ thinking.

Under the current legislation, planning authorities are already required to consider in which part or parts of their area it is desirable to create simplified planning zones and to keep that question under review. However, given the extremely limited number of zones that have come forward to date, it is arguable that planning authorities have not been regularly considering the matter.

Opportunities to radically reposition planning as a leader and an enabler of development should not be lost. I have therefore set out a more transparent approach, whereby planning authorities have to regularly publish a statement on how they have fulfilled their duty to consider making masterplan consent area schemes.

It might be possible to link that with local development plan delivery programmes, which are to be updated annually. That could help to provide us, the wider community and industry with a picture of how each authority is considering delivery of their local development plans, and the use of schemes as part of that. The bill’s provisions allow ministers to use regulations to prescribe minimum standards for how frequently planning authorities must consider the question of which part or parts of their area it would be desirable to make a scheme for.

Mr Tomkins’s amendments would require authorities to do that at least once every five years. I am happy to accept that requirement and leave it open to local authorities to report more often if they so wish.

Monica Lennon

I welcome the minister’s remarks. They give me the opportunity to come back.

It is regrettable that we have heard quite a bit of scaremongering. The minister began by saying that the amendments would be “greatly” damaging. However, I want to go back a step.

The bill contains proposals to shift local development plan making to a 10-year cycle. It provides for a high-level document that sets out a vision and a 10-year strategy for an area. I welcome the fact that we will maintain a plan-led system in Scotland, but that is a highly discretionary system that allows skilled planning professionals and their colleagues to apply the right discretion and flexibility. We hope to have a generation of local development plans that provide certainty and guide development to the right places.

Kevin Stewart

Will Monica Lennon give way?

Monica Lennon

In a moment, minister. Around this table, we hope that the plans will remain flexible in their approach.

It would be unfair if, when it comes to shocks to local economies, businesses closing down and so on, we let it hang here that the sole responsibility to sort that out lies with planning departments. I can think of many times in the past few months when East Kilbride, Scotland’s first new town, has seen closure after closure on the high street and in local business parks. I raised the situation with the previous cabinet secretary for the economy but it took six weeks to get a response about what the Government can do to work with local government—I had to raise the point with the First Minister to get a reply.

It not simply a case of what planning does. I do not think for a minute that planners will sit on their hands and not face up to the challenges, but we are not talking about planning alone.

The minister talked about things being resource intensive. The biggest barrier is not about what is in the local development plan; it is about the resources.

Kevin Stewart

Will the member give way?

Monica Lennon

In a moment. We have talked at length about a 23 per cent reduction in the planning authority workforce since 2009. You cannot be serious about economic growth when you cut council budgets, leaving us to look at that level of decline in the planning workforce.

We need highly skilled planners who can do economic development and liaise with the private sector so that we do not get to the point at which we have to react to shocks in the economy. We should have robust development plans and strategic development plans that mean that we can prepare for challenges to our economy.

I am happy to give way at this point.

Kevin Stewart

First, I have to say that I am not scaremongering; I am giving very real examples of what can happen. I am not saying that economic shocks are the sole responsibility of planning departments—far from it—but we have to be able to give people the tools to react to difficult situations that can arise, even in the best of economic times.

As I have clarified, masterplan consent areas are a tool to support the delivery of the plan rather than an integral part of the plan. It is therefore not necessary to trigger an amendment to an LDP whenever a scheme has to be made. I do not think that Ms Lennon is suggesting that LDPs should be amended every time the planning authority grants planning permission, so why should they have to be amended when the authority makes a masterplan consent area scheme?

10:30

Ms Lennon’s amendment risks putting planners back on the treadmill of constantly updating plans rather than focusing on placemaking and delivery—that is ultimately what matters, not added procedures.

The Convener

Could you finish, please?

Kevin Stewart

I am finishing now, convener. We have included provisions on consultation, engagement and publication of masterplan consent area schemes, so there is no need to amend a local development plan to ensure that those steps are carried out.

Monica Lennon

One of the reasons why I lodged the amendments is that we all want to increase public confidence in the planning system. We have talked at length about the local development plan-making process and the need to get more people from the community around the table to make sure that we are making sensible decisions about the communities in which they live.

We could have a situation in which a local development plan has just been signed off—has just been adopted—and then, weeks later, various different masterplan consent areas come forward. What does it say to the people who gave up their time to come to public meetings and get involved as stakeholders when things rapidly change?

I welcomed the minister’s initial clarification this morning about masterplan consent areas. I think that there are other worthwhile amendments that would curtail the minister’s right to designate them because he is not a planning authority—it is the planning authority that, working with the community, knows best about the area.

In principle, I have come round to the minister’s idea of the masterplan consent area. However, it is really important that we maintain public confidence, and I do not see the problem in making sure that the process is properly aligned with the local development plan. I do not think that anyone needs to be frightened that there is a lack of masterplan consent areas. For masterplan consent areas to be effective, the most important thing is for hard cash to be available to invest in areas. It is not the planners who hold the purse strings on these things; I think that we have to remember that too.

I press my amendments.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 296 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 296 disagreed to.

Amendment 297 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 297 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 297 disagreed to.

Amendment 251 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 298 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 298 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 298 disagreed to.

Amendments 299 to 301 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 93, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 14, 302, 94, 303, 95 to 97, 304 and 256. I point out the following pre-emptions—pay attention.

Amendment 93 will pre-empt amendment 56 in the group “Directions etc: form and publication”. Amendment 14 will pre-empt amendment 252 in the group “Simplified development zones: renaming”. Amendment 303 will pre-empt amendment 293 in the group “Simplified development zones: land which may or may not be included” and amendment 253 in the group “Simplified development zones: renaming”. Amendment 95 will pre-empt amendment 57 in the group “Directions etc: form and publication”. Amendment 96 will pre-empt amendments 254 and 255 in the group “Simplified development zones: renaming”. Amendment 304 will pre-empt amendment 256 in this group.

I ask Andy Wightman to make some sense of that and to move amendment 93 and speak to all the amendments in the group.

Andy Wightman

Thank you, convener. I suspect that we will need to make sense of some of that at a later stage.

The amendments in my name in the group are designed to limit the power to initiate the designation of masterplan consent areas to planning authorities alone, and to remove the various powers of ministers to direct planning authorities otherwise. In other words, masterplan consent areas are not to be considered as an alternative form of statutory planning application procedure that are open to anybody to pursue, including my sister in Switzerland, who featured in stage 1 debates.

In our stage 1 report, we recommended that proposals for masterplan consent areas should form part of a local development plan and that only planning authorities should have the statutory right to introduce proposals for a scheme. That recommendation was never intended to prevent any party, including my sister in Switzerland, from requesting, suggesting or advocating that there should be masterplan consent areas—it merely removes the statutory right to make such a request.

Amendment 93 would remove the power of Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority to make a scheme.

Amendment 14, in the name of Graham Simpson, would remove the statutory right of third parties to apply to have a scheme made and to have the right of appeal when that is refused.

Amendment 94 would remove the Scottish ministers’ power to direct a planning authority to notify them of any proposed scheme.

Amendment 95 would remove ministerial powers of call-in.

Amendment 96 would remove the power of Scottish ministers to make a direction or to make or alter a scheme when a direction has been issued under paragraph 6, which will be deleted by amendment 93.

Amendment 97 would remove ministers’ direction-making powers over procedures.

Amendments 302 to 304, in the name of Monica Lennon, would remove provision from new schedule 5A of the 1997 act. I think that I agree with them, but I will listen to what she has to say.

I move amendment 93.

Graham Simpson

Amendment 14 is one of the many amendments whose meaning people must find completely baffling. It is one of those amendments that mean that members need to check the bill and see what lines 29 to 39 say and work out what it will mean if they go. I can save members the effort of doing all that and explain.

Amendment 14 would remove from third parties or individuals the power to request a masterplan consent area. During stage 1, Andy Wightman referred several times to his sister in Switzerland, as he has said, and questioned whether she could request such a zone. I will call amendment 14 “the Andy Wightman’s sister amendment”, because it will make a change to new schedule 5A, which will be inserted into the 1997 act by section 10 of the bill, so that a person is no longer allowed to request that an authority considers setting up a masterplan consent area. That will be achieved by deleting paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of new schedule 5A. The amendment is quite straightforward. It is what the committee has recommended, and I urge the committee to support it.

I welcome amendments 302 to 304, in the name of Monica Lennon, and amendments 93 to 97, in the name of Andy Wightman, which he has already explained.

Monica Lennon

I support amendment 93, in the name of Andy Wightman, which will delete ministers’ ability to direct planning authorities regarding simplified development zones.

We will see how we get on.

I will finish, in support of Graham Simpson’s and Andy Wightman’s amendments, by repeating a point that I made earlier—ministers are not planning authorities and do not have the same expertise, and neither have they gone through the in-depth process of consulting the public and putting together a local development plan. I am happy for a masterplan consent area to be one of the tools that a planning authority can use to meet the needs of the local population, but I do not believe that they should be at the disposal of ministers.

Kevin Stewart

The amendments in this group would have a severe impact on the operation of this positive new part of the planning system. The process that we have set out for making or altering a masterplan consent area is well thought through and we have been testing it in a series of pilot projects, as I have already mentioned.

Our provisions are more streamlined than the existing provisions for preparing simplified planning zones. They ensure that appropriate and tailored engagement is carried out and that representations are taken into account. We have explored the new process with planners working on the simplified planning zone housing pilots, who are grappling with the old legislation. Those planners view our changes as a marked improvement: they are proportionate while ensuring greater early engagement.

Ms Lennon’s amendments 302 to 304 propose the removal of numerous sections of the process without replacing them with alternatives. I recognise that Ms Lennon sees that approach as supporting her other amendments, which have already fallen, to tie masterplan consent areas to local development plans, but what she is proposing would create a vacuum. To put it in simple terms, local development plans set out spatial strategy for a whole local authority area, while masterplan consent areas issue consent for the development of a specific area, with any associated conditions.

I do not consider that the procedures and consultation requirements for local development plans are appropriate for masterplan consent areas. I cannot see how Ms Lennon’s amendments would allow both processes to function properly or be achievable in a reasonable timescale with the resources that are available in planning authorities. I ask Ms Lennon not to move those amendments.

Mr Wightman’s amendments seek to take ministers out of the picture in relation to masterplan consent areas. However, I believe that there is value in ministers having those powers. The power to direct a planning authority to make or alter a masterplan consent area scheme, or for ministers to make or alter a scheme themselves, could be used to very positive effect in Scotland—for example, to pursue the delivery of priorities in the national planning framework, which will have been fully scrutinised and approved by Parliament.

Ministers could also direct that a scheme should be brought forward to support other projects of national or regional significance. For example, in the case of a serious economic event such as the closure of a major employer, a scheme instigated by ministers could help to drive forward action with all levels of government working together, to enhance the place’s prospects.

10:45

For example, there is a very similar provision in Ireland where orders can be made requiring a planning authority to prepare a strategic development zone scheme and to bring it forward within two years. That provision has been used in a very positive way to deliver developments of national significance, including the redevelopment of Dublin docklands and strategic housing developments. This is not about centralisation or taking control away from local authorities, and I do not expect the power to be used often. Indeed, I will actively encourage and support authorities to be proactive in bringing forward masterplan consent areas where they are clearly needed.

As for notification and call-in, my proposal is for masterplan consent areas to have fewer notification stages than are required under the current simplified planning zone provisions. The bill does not repeat the requirement for planning authorities to notify ministers as soon as they decide to make a masterplan consent area or when they place it on deposit for representations. That is not necessary. I have taken a more proportionate approach under which ministers are allowed to issue a direction setting out particular types of schemes that should be notified to them.

The approach should work in a similar way to the notification of applications direction, under which certain planning applications are notified to ministers where issues of national importance might be involved—for example, where there are objections from a statutory agency or where the planning authority has a financial interest in a masterplan consent area. A scheme will issue a consent and, for the sake of consistency, I think it right for the planning authority to notify ministers of its intention to adopt the scheme only in some limited circumstances. Ministers intervene very rarely in planning applications, and I expect that to be the case for masterplan consent areas, too.

Amendment 97 would delete the provisions that would allow ministers to issue directions about procedure and provision of information. Although I would not expect to use the power regularly, it is important that we cover those unique situations in which something specific has to be done about a specific scheme that would not be applicable to all schemes. Examples could include requiring the planning authority to consult a particular local organisation that has a special interest in the scheme. Such case-specific requirements could not be predicted or set out in regulations but could be issued as a direction to the relevant authority.

Moreover, the power in paragraph 24(1)(b) of new schedule 5A to the 1997 act, to be inserted by section 10(2) of the bill, could be used by ministers to require additional information from the planning authority to inform their decision whether they should call in a particular scheme before it is made. It is important to have these powers in place in the interests of full and proper engagement and to ensure that any decisions made by ministers in exercising their functions are made on a fully informed basis.

Amendment 14, in the name of Graham Simpson, would remove the power for a person to request a masterplan consent zone to be made. This is an established process, and we are not aware of any wider evidence with regard to such a proposal or any calls to remove this power. It is worth looking at the Hillington Park simplified planning zone as an example. Since its adoption, planning authorities have been notified of approximately 28,000m² of additional floor space, which equates to over £25 million of investment in the area. That scheme was initiated by a party other than the planning authority—in that case, the landowner.

However, the proposal in amendment 14 would not just remove a right of landowners. We see masterplan consent areas as a positive delivery tool supporting all kinds of developments that offer benefits to different types of groups. For example, a community group could request a scheme to support delivery of its local place plan, or a business improvement district or local chamber of commerce might propose one to support town centre regeneration. The scheme could be used to put in place the consents that are needed to help their vision become a reality and could also unlock funding streams for the community to take forward those plans.

We have proposed a well-structured process for masterplan consent areas, with proportionate powers for ministers to intervene in appropriate circumstances, which are in line with similar arrangements for planning applications. The amendments that members propose would leave the process unbalanced and full of holes, so I ask the committee not to support them.

My amendment in the group, amendment 256, is a technical one that simply makes clear the exact day on which a period ends when the start and end months have a different number of days. Given the size of this group of amendments, I hope that we can avoid a debate on the wonders of the Gregorian calendar.

Graham Simpson

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

Yes.

The Convener

Very briefly, please.

Graham Simpson

I will be brief. I have listened carefully to what the minister has said. He has made cogent arguments on amendment 14. I will still move it but, from what he has said, it seems that there is an opportunity to have further discussions on the issue and perhaps be rather more specific in the bill about who or what organisations can propose consent areas.

Kevin Stewart

I am always happy to have further discussions. I am sure that the committee would not want to prevent community groups and business groups from putting forward their vision.

To conclude, there is considerable and growing support for planning to actively enable the delivery of high-quality development, and masterplan consent areas will be an important tool in the box for achieving that. Part 2 has been carefully designed and we have been working with authorities to fully test it. I ask the committee to reject amendments that will undermine our good work in this important area. However, I am more than willing to have further discussions with members on aspects of the issue.

Andy Wightman

I welcome the minister’s observations. The concern that some of us had at stage 1 was that the process by which masterplan consent areas can be applied for confers wide powers, which could easily be used to bypass planning authorities. The proposals give a lot of power to ministers to influence development against the wishes of those authorities. That is where some of the concerns came from.

I want to respond to the minister’s arguments about places such as Hillington Park and about chambers of commerce or community groups. Nothing in my amendments would prevent any party, including my sister in Switzerland, from advocating, requesting or suggesting masterplan consent areas or from publicly campaigning and tabling motions in local authorities to have such areas. Indeed, I think that they are a useful mechanism and that, potentially, many people should argue for them. All that my amendments do is remove the statutory right to make an application. I certainly want us to move over time to a more public-led model of development planning rather than the system that we have at the moment, which is dominated by private interests.

I am content to revisit some of the amendments. I listened carefully to what the minister said and, in light of his comments, I will not press amendment 93 or move amendments 96 and 97. He gave cogent reasons why the provisions that those amendments would remove are in the bill.

I listened to what Graham Simpson had to say, and I still support amendment 14. Masterplan consent areas should be introduced only by planning authorities, although I agree with Graham Simpson that we could perhaps have further discussions to widen that out before stage 3.

Amendment 94 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 94 agreed to.

The Convener

I call amendment 303, in the name of Monica Lennon, and I remind members that, if agreed to, the amendment will pre-empt amendments 293 and 253.

I call amendment 96, in the name of Andy Wightman, and I remind members that, if agreed to, the amendment will pre-empt amendments 254 and 255.

Amendment 96 not moved.

Amendments 254 and 255 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 97 not moved.

The Convener

I call amendment 304, in the name of Monica Lennon, and I remind members that, if agreed to, the amendment will pre-empt amendment 256.

Amendment 304 not moved.

Amendment 256 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

This might be an appropriate time to have a very brief break. If everyone could be back in five minutes, that would be great.

11:00 Meeting suspended.

11:06 On resuming—

Before section 12

The Convener

Amendment 43, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 44, 45 and 140.

Andy Wightman

Section 10(2)(e) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 provided that

“the use of any land for the purposes of agriculture or forestry ... and the use for any of those purposes of any building occupied together with land”

did not constitute development. That exception is restated in section 26(2)(e) of the 1997 act. Amendment 43 would remove that exception and bring agricultural land and forestry land use into the planning system by classifying such usage as development for the purposes of planning law.

There are several reasons why I think that it is right to do that. Section 57 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 introduced a duty on ministers to prepare a land use strategy. Work on that is still on-going, but given that the strategy is spatial and covers rural land use, it is self-evident that such a strategy should be part of the planning system in order to ensure that democratically accountable decisions can be made about two land uses that cover extensive areas of land.

It is worth noting that the impact will be minimal as far as agricultural land is concerned, since virtually no new land is coming into agricultural use that would constitute development. However, bringing agriculture firmly within the planning system will allow for more coherent spatial planning in relation to hydrology and flood control, soil and vegetation management and the protection of vital areas of land for food growing.

Land use in relation to forestry is expanding and the impact of the change will be most keenly felt in the forestry sector. Currently, Scottish planning policy provides for local forestry and woodland strategies in the form of supplementary guidance. Indeed, this year, Highland Council has been consulting on its latest strategy.

Given that forestry development has important implications for landscape, road infrastructure, hydrology, industry and employment, it should be governed by the planning system rather than, as at present, by a Government department—Forestry Commission Scotland—that operates outside the spatial planning system.

Amendments 44 and 45 would introduce into primary legislation a definition of what constitutes a change of use in relation to a dwelling house that is intended to be used as a holiday home or as a short-term let, respectively. Currently, either of those two changes of use might constitute a change of use according to the land use class orders, depending on circumstances.

Amendment 44 seeks to bring holiday or second homes, as they are also known, into the planning system. The Scottish Government—in SSI 2013/45—defines such premises for council tax purposes as homes that are occupied for at least 25 days per year and are not the main residence of the owner. That means that the properties are occupied only for specific times of the year and are left vacant the majority of the time.

Data published by the National Records of Scotland in May 2018 indicated that there are 25,713 holidays homes in Scotland. However, the true figure could be much higher as it has been reported—and it is known—that owners are increasingly reclassifying properties as commercial holiday lets in order to take advantage of taxation loopholes, most notably the small business bonus scheme. Indeed, some councils, such as the City of Edinburgh Council and West Dunbartonshire Council, no longer record how many second homes there are in their localities because of that complication.

The impact of second homes on local housing markets has been a long-standing issue in rural Scotland and remains a serious problem in areas such as Applecross, Arran and the east neuk of Fife. For example, in the neighbouring data zones of Elie and Earlsferry, out of a total of 937 dwellings, 422 or 45 per cent of properties are second homes. I understand that the local school has closed as a consequence. None of that has been governed by any planning decision made by a democratic planning authority.

Over the summer I conducted a consultation on amendment 44, which received responses from residents, industry and planning authorities. The Cairngorms National Park Authority, for example, pointed to one of its publications, which calls second homes “problematic” and “ineffective stock”.

Amendment 44 would ensure that, where a property is currently used as a main home, and there is an intention to change that use to anything else, including use as a holiday home, the proposal cannot be given effect to without any consideration of the possible impacts on local housing markets and availability. That would allow planning authorities to regulate the use of domestic property to ensure the most appropriate balance between homes for local people and holiday homes for external interests.

Amendment 45 seeks to provide a clearer and simpler definition of what constitutes a change of use from a domestic dwelling to a short-term let. As members may be aware, I have been working on the topic for more than a year in response to widespread concerns about the rapid growth in homes used for certain purposes. The concern is not about home sharing, where the owner rents out a room or two or perhaps even the whole property for a few weeks and where the property remains their home—historically, that has meant taking in lodgers—but is about homes being used as commercial lets, where the property ceases to be a domestic dwelling and is converted into a commercial property that is let out for short periods of time, typically on a global online platform.

Currently, short-term lets are not included in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997. Class 7 covers hotels and hostels but does not include short-term lets. That means that the use is sui generis, or in a class of its own, and that any proposal to change the use from class 9—houses used as main or sole residences—to a short-term let is, on paper, a change of use that requires consent. However, such a change of use has to be material before any consent is required and the principal means of assessing materiality in Edinburgh and elsewhere has been to take account of the intensity and frequency of use by visitors.

For example, an application for a certificate of lawfulness for a short-term let operating in South Queensferry without consent was refused on the basis that the intensity and frequency of use exceeded 30 per cent of the year. That and many other applications in the Edinburgh area have been upheld by the reporter on appeal. However, such assessments are incredibly time-consuming to undertake and typically rely on neighbours documenting the comings and goings of visitors and submitting that as evidence of a breach of planning. That is hugely disproportionate.

In addition, the current planning provisions are open to legal challenge. One case that was planned to be brought before the Court of Session by a woman who lives in California and uses her property in Edinburgh as a short-term let has been dropped, but others are in the pipeline.

What is required is a straightforward definition in planning law of what constitutes a change of use from a dwelling house to a short-term let. The key issue here is the distinction between a property being used as a permanent home—a sole or main residence, or a place for a family to live—and its being used as a commercial short-term let. Amendment 45 would put such a distinction into law.

The purpose of amendment 45 is not to prescribe the number and location of short-term lets. That is a matter for planning authorities, through their development plans and development control. Amendment 45 would allow authorities to develop policy and implement development control in a more effective and meaningful manner.

Finally, I note that a number of detailed issues were raised in the consultation responses that I received, which I will publish. I will seek to address those issues between now and stage 3. I invite members to support amendments 43, 44 and 45.

I move amendment 43.

11:15

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Good morning. I lodged amendment 140 and the consequential amendments 141 and 142, which will be considered in groups 10 and 12, with the intention of protecting areas of flood risk from the exercising of agricultural permitted development rights, which can proceed without a full planning application being necessary.

An example of that in my region involved permitted development rights being used, ultimately, to develop housing on a flood plain. Initially, land on a flood plain was raised under permitted development rights for the purpose of constructing an agricultural shed. Although the Scottish Environment Protection Agency had concerns about that, it had no remit in relation to the permitted development rights status of the land. The changes made the flood plain issue a serious concern. Unfortunately, that led to the developer making a subsequent, successful application for housing, an application for which had previously been declined. SEPA voiced its concerns about the application, given the history of the site, but the local authority’s declining of the application was overruled by the Scottish Government inquiry reporter. The reporter concluded that, because the land had been raised and was therefore out of the flood plain, the application should not have been rejected.

I believe that that example illustrates the existence of a concerning loophole in the law as it stands. Although I stress that the developer adhered to the planning process and did not breach it with their application for housing, the application created tremendous anxiety and resentment among members of the community, who were perplexed by a system that appeared not to be able to protect them. Only two years ago, unprecedented destruction was caused by flooding across the country as a result of adverse weather conditions, and the likelihood of such conditions recurring will increase, given the climate change challenges that we face. It is therefore vital that we protect our flood plains and have legislation in place to do so. That means future proofing.

However, following discussions with the Scottish Government and SEPA, I am considering not moving my amendments. I understand that work to look at the extension of permitted development rights is already under way. I note that, in the sustainability appraisal scoping report, the removal of permitted development rights from areas of flood risk has been highlighted as a measure that should be considered, and I am reassured that SEPA will engage further on the issue. That said, I seek reassurance from the minister that that is the case and that he will also consider the issue in the context of the national planning framework and the national policy review.

Kevin Stewart

As we move to the part of the bill that deals with development management, I would like—at the risk of sounding like a stuck record—to take a moment to reiterate the Government’s purpose in introducing the bill. The aim is to streamline the planning system and remove unnecessary process for planning authorities and applicants so that resources can be focused on creating great places and delivering the development that our communities need.

There was very little in the bill as introduced on development management. That is because the independent panel did not find that any major changes were needed in that area. The decisions that are made—which are made mainly by local planning authorities—are led by the development plan, but the material considerations that may be relevant to each case are also taken into account. Planning authorities have substantial flexibility in their ability to request additional information from the applicant, to consider the individual local circumstances that apply in each case and to impose conditions on the development if that seems necessary. There are practical issues that we need to address through training and guidance and improvements in technology, but we do not propose to change that basic system.

The flexibility for planning authorities to consider what is relevant in each case is essential, given the wide range of issues that the planning system deals with and the different circumstances that apply in every case. I recognise that many of the amendments that have been lodged seek to address important issues, but a blanket requirement in primary legislation is not always the best solution. The committee has agreed that, in future, policies should be an integral part of the development plan, through both the national planning framework and the local development plan. That gives policy additional weight and scrutiny, while still allowing planning authorities to decide which policies are relevant in individual cases.

Members have said that they do not want the bill to be centralising, but many of the amendments would limit authorities’ ability to deal with applications in a way that suits their local and individual circumstances and to balance the various issues that are involved in order to make the best decision in the overall public interest. Blanket statutory requirements also run the risk of imposing additional costs and delays in cases in which they are not necessary. Although the impacts of individual amendments may be small, I ask members of the committee to consider the cumulative impact of all the amendments that have been lodged.

The first group of amendments relate to the meaning of development with regard to what does or does not require planning permission. Essentially, section 26(1) of the 1997 act provides that building and engineering operations, or any material change of use, are development, which requires planning permission. Section 26(2) excludes certain things from that, such as works that affect only the interior of the building, ordinary use of a house and garden, maintenance of roads, sewers, water pipes and so on.

Andy Wightman’s amendment 43 seeks to remove the exclusion for the use of land for forestry or agriculture so that any material change of use for such purposes would require planning permission. It is not clear what the implications of such a change would be—for example, what sort of changes of use in relation to agriculture and forestry might be considered to be material and would therefore require planning permission before they could be carried out. It would certainly have a significant impact on those sectors and the rural economy of which they are part, as well as on planning authorities. Even where planning permission was not required, people would need to stop and consider it, and perhaps request a certificate of lawful use or development, just to be sure. All of that would introduce delays and costs to business and regulators.

Some of the activities that would be brought into the planning system by amendment 43 are already regulated by other means. Environmental impact assessment regulations apply to proposals to carry out a range of agricultural operations and woodland creation projects where the result would have a significant impact on the environment. The legislative framework that covers the regulation of forestry in Scotland is in the process of being modernised, and forestry will be fully devolved to the Scottish ministers from April next year. The updated regulatory regime has been consulted on widely and is expected to work effectively for landowners, local communities and consultees. It includes well-developed procedures for preparing and assessing forestry projects such as woodland creation, felling and restocking against internationally recognised sustainable forest management criteria.

Irrigation, which would be brought into the definition of development by the removal of section 26(2A) of the 1997 act, is subject to control under other environmental regulations, managed by SEPA. On the other hand, the removal of the clarification in subsection (2A) that drainage and water management projects are development, and are therefore currently subject to planning controls, could lead to some of those activities being left unregulated.

Overall, I am concerned that amendment 43 would unravel an interlocking system of regulation, resulting in possible duplication and adding unnecessary burdens and confusion.

I turn to Claudia Beamish’s amendment 140, which would require planning permission for any of the operations and activities that are currently exempt from planning control where certain flood risk criteria were met. The criteria themselves are not necessarily clear cut, as Ms Beamish found in a discussion with our officials. It is not obvious how the person carrying out an activity would obtain the planning authority’s opinion first. The wording is taken from the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, but it relates to mapping and assessment at a strategic level and is not intended to be used in the planning system.

The final subsection of amendment 140 is particularly broad; it applies to anything that affects the features, even if it improves them, and could impact on clearing vegetation, even in gardens or on road verges. I am aware of some of the concerns about activities that are already classed as development but which are granted planning permission by permitted development rights, such as excavations and engineering operations for agriculture. What benefits from permitted development rights is, however, a separate matter from the definition of development and would be unaffected by the amendment.

SEPA and local authority flooding officers already have a significant and highly technical role in the planning system. Flooding is a material consideration and flood risk is considered fully through the system. Reducing flood risk is a priority for the Scottish Government and we will be working through national planning framework 4 and Scottish planning policy in due course and will consider in discussion with SEPA and others whether any changes need to be brought forward to strengthen policy in relation to development in areas of flood risk.

We will also be reviewing permitted development rights after the bill has been passed. I ask Claudia Beamish not to move her amendment. I will be happy to include her in the discussions when the time comes.

I turn to amendments 44 and 45. I share Mr Wightman’s concern about the availability of homes in popular tourist areas. The Government has taken a number of measures to encourage the use of existing properties as main residences, allowing local authorities to remove council tax discounts on second homes and supporting the work of Scotland’s empty homes partnership, which tackles the wide range of reasons why a property might be empty and helps to provide case-by-case solutions for people. We also introduced the land and buildings transaction tax additional dwelling supplement in April 2016, which has made it more expensive to purchase second homes in Scotland.

I am of course aware of the concerns in parts of the country, particularly Edinburgh, about the effects on long-term communities of houses and flats being used for short-term letting. We need to consider how we can address those concerns while not undermining the economic benefits of tourism, particularly in areas that want to increase holiday accommodation.

I am very sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments. However, there are significant difficulties with their wording, which means that I cannot support them in their current form. I hope that Mr Wightman will be open to further discussion before stage 3 to see whether we can resolve some of these issues. Principally, the types of accommodation that would be controlled by the amendments are not clearly defined. There is provision for ministers to issue guidance, but that does not allow us to refine what would require planning permission; interpretation of legislation is a matter for the courts.

Clearly, defining what is a holiday home, second home or short-term let requires detailed consideration of for how long, how often or in what circumstances a property needs to be used in order to fall into those categories. If someone is working on an extended contract in another part of the country and is living in rented accommodation, would one or other of the properties constitute a second home? If someone is staying in a short-term let on a business trip, is that different from a holiday let? I wonder whether a provision for regulations might help to clarify those issues better than guidance would.

11:30

Amendment 44 would change the definition of development to include any change in the use of a sole or main residence that changes its purpose. Although it refers in particular to use as a second home or a holiday home, it does not exclude other changes in purpose. For example, it is not clear whether that would include secondary uses such as turning one room into an office or a childminding facility, which currently do not necessarily require planning permission. That needs to be clarified.

Amendment 45 would exclude a residential lease and a letting property that is the sole or main residence of the landlord from being considered to be a short-term let. However, under amendment 44, such properties might be considered to change the purpose of the dwelling, which would make those exemptions irrelevant.

We must be conscious of the implications of addressing such problems through planning legislation. First, the proposals would apply across Scotland, requiring additional planning applications in areas that want to increase holiday accommodation, as well as in those that see a need to control it.

Secondly, creating a requirement for planning permission does not translate into being able to refuse permission if there are no material planning considerations involved, and it is not clear whether a change in how a dwelling is occupied would be a material consideration in all cases. Robust development plan policies would also be needed to ensure that any decisions on applications could withstand challenge.

Thirdly, neither amendment would affect existing second homes or short-term lets. Although owners might want to apply for certificates of lawful use that establish the planning status of their property, the proposals might even create a premium price for existing properties in some areas, making it even harder to bring them back into use as a main residence.

Fourthly, planning permission is a one-off decision and would not address the various concerns that have been expressed in relation to the management of short-term letting, such as health and safety and antisocial behaviour issues. Andy Wightman has written to me jointly with Alex Cole-Hamilton, Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale, calling for the extension of licensing controls to short-term letting. In our exchanges on a recent parliamentary question, he sought clarification on whether any such licensing scheme would give all local authorities powers and allow them to decide whether to develop their own schemes or choose to have no scheme, in line with local needs. That degree of local flexibility on the need for control would not apply with a national requirement for planning permission.

We have made a commitment in the programme for government to consider the matter further, to look at what the evidence tells us and to ensure that local authorities have the appropriate powers to manage short-term letting. To that end, we have set up a short-term lets delivery group of officials from across Government.

As I have said, we cannot accept the amendments in their current form, but I am happy to work with Mr Wightman in advance of stage 3 to see what we can take forward to enable the planning system to contribute to addressing the problems. I ask the committee not to support the amendments in this group.

Thank you for your forbearance, convener; I had to address a number of technical issues.

The Convener

Thank you, minister.

Graham Simpson

I will try to be brief, but this is an important group.

Amendment 43 seeks to bring agriculture and forestry within the meaning of “development”. The committee has had correspondence on that from NFU Scotland, whose strong view is that it would be wholly impractical for farmers when going about their everyday business. It went on to say that it would introduce

“a vast burden for local authorities and potentially jeopardise food production in Scotland.”

Those are strong words, convener. I am pretty sure that Andy Wightman would not wish to jeopardise food production. As the minister has said, the amendment could have a significant impact on agriculture. I will cut to the chase: I will not support amendment 43.

I turn to Andy Wightman’s amendments 44 and 45. Amendment 44 says that if a property stops being used as someone’s main home and is used “for any other purpose”—with ministers issuing guidance on what is meant by that—that should be regarded as a change of use that requires planning permission. However, as the minister himself has said, that could include, for example, using a home for a childminding business—or for any other business, for that matter. Amendment 44 is far too wide, vague and open to interpretation, so I will not support it.

Amendment 45 is slightly different. It is specifically about people’s homes being let out as short-term holiday lets. We have to be careful about that. The self-catering sector is very important. It generates £723 million a year in economic activity in Scotland and supports 15,000 full-time jobs. However, it must surely be right that the local council can control things and protect areas from losing their identity and their desirability as places in which to live permanently. We have to recognise that there have been concerns about that in parts of the country, and especially in Edinburgh. At this point, Scottish Conservatives think that amendment 45 can be supported. However, I say to anyone in the sector who has misgivings that they should carry on talking to us. If changes are needed for stage 3, we will look at them. The minister says that he is open to discussion about that, and I encourage him to move forward with that offer and to talk to everyone.

I am reassured by Claudia Beamish signalling her intent to withdraw amendment 140, which deals with flooding. I can see where she is coming from, but the terms of the amendment are too wide for us to support at this stage. Therefore I hope that she will withdraw it.

The Convener

Before I let Monica Lennon in, I say to members that, at the appropriate time, I looked round to ask whether anyone wanted to come in, and nobody indicated that they did. I ask members to ensure that, in the future, they catch my eye before the last speaker responds.

Monica Lennon

You are very fair, convener, although it is hard for me to catch your eye when we are sitting side by side.

The Convener

Well, you have the advantage, then: you could just come in.

Monica Lennon

I will be very brief.

Amendment 43 would represent a major shift in where decision-making power lies when it comes to forestry. I do not believe that such a shift would be without merit, but I would like more time to speak to colleagues and other stakeholders on such a change. I have not yet abstained on any vote on the bill, but I will do so today. I would like to speak further to Andy Wightman about that amendment.

The minister made very valid points on amendment 44—it takes me back to my development management days, which reminds me, convener, that I should have declared earlier my interest as a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Amendment 44 could have unintended consequences and needs a bit more work, so I will not support it.

In contrast, amendment 45 is more tightly drawn, so I echo Graham Simpson’s remarks and will support it today.

The Convener

I invite Andy Wightman to wind up.

Andy Wightman

To cut to the chase, I will seek to withdraw amendment 43 when it comes to the vote, and I will not move amendment 44.

The minister talked about some places wanting to control—meaning to limit—and others wanting to increase short-term lets. The planning system is there to do precisely that, and to provide planning authorities with the means to regulate the use of land and property in the way that they see fit.

The essence of amendment 45 is to draw a distinction between property that is someone’s main home and property that is no longer a main home. That is a legitimate and valid distinction between two separate uses.

Kevin Stewart

My main difficulty with amendment 45 is in the definition, which is not in that amendment. I am more than happy to have further discussions with Mr Wightman and other members to see how we can deal with that, but I cannot support an amendment that does not give the full story and all the information that is required. I am more than happy to have the discussions with Mr Wightman and any other member to get this right, but I am not happy to support amendment 45 at the moment.

Andy Wightman

I understand that and, as I indicated in my opening marks, there is drafting work to be done on amendment 45. The key distinction is between property that is a “sole or main residence”, which is language that appears in amendment 44 but not, I concede, in amendment 45, and property that is not.

Planning authorities across the country are deciding on or determining applications to build self-catering accommodation. I found any number of them during my research. The consents are typically granted, because people want to support the tourism economy, and such consents typically prohibit the use of such property as a “sole or main residence”. Planning authorities are used to doing this kind of regulation.

The problem that we have with short-term commercial lets, particularly with the conversion of existing homes to commercial letting where the property is no longer somebody’s home, is that the materiality of that change is being assessed on the basis of intensity and frequency of use, which is a virtually impossible task. Notwithstanding that, Edinburgh has more than 100 enforcement actions out on those grounds, but it is not easy.

On the minister’s point about regulation, I noted that the programme for government contained a commitment to explore licensing powers. I want to be clear about the distinction between licensing and planning. For example, in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, on alcohol premises, the first provision that one has to satisfy if one is applying for a licence is that the premises from which one intends to conduct the activity of selling alcohol has planning permission for that purpose.

Similarly, for short-term lets, I envisage a licensing process that is designed to ensure that standards relating to fire safety and gas safety checks and so on are adhered to and in which licences can be granted only to premises that have planning consent for that use. I reiterate that the current means by which that planning consent is being granted is difficult and time consuming, as the intensity and frequency of use are the key criteria.

I will move amendment 45. I want to get its provisions into the bill and I say in unambiguous terms to the minister that I would welcome sitting down with him at the earliest possible opportunity to make sure that we bring greater clarity to the planning system on what constitutes a change of use in this field. It is the necessary precondition to any licensing scheme that might be proposed. Otherwise, the danger in having a licensing process that is quasi-judicial and has limited discretionary grounds for refusal is that one might find that a licence is granted for a short-term let but the property from which that activity is planned to be carried out does not have planning consent. That would be a bizarre state of affairs.

Amendment 43, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 44 not moved.

Amendment 45 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 45 agreed to.

Amendment 140 not moved.

Section 12 agreed to.

11:45

After section 12

The Convener

Amendment 207, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 228, 229, 113, 114, 307, 209 and 210. However, I note that Pauline is not here, in which case we will move to amendment 228, in the name of Claudia Beamish.

Claudia Beamish

Amendment 228 is in the same vein as my amendment 220, which was not agreed to and which, as members will recall, sought to set up a low-carbon infrastructure commission with responsibility for establishing national infrastructure needs assessments. Amendment 228 would place an additional requirement on developers making applications

“for planning permission for a national ... or a major development ... to include a national infrastructure needs assessment (within the meaning)”

that was referred to in amendment 220.

As amendment 228 stands in its own right, I will, with members’ forbearance, briefly explore the issue that it addresses. Given that the more substantive amendment 220 was not agreed to, I will not press amendment 228. However, I must reiterate that any development that involves a high level of investment should last for a considerable length of time into the future. It is therefore vital that such developments be designed in line with a low-carbon future. That becomes even more imperative, given the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on the need to ensure that emissions do not cause temperatures to rise by more than 1.5°C. We must not build infrastructure that will need to be retrofitted or will go out of date quickly.

I welcome comments from members on amendment 228. If appropriate, I will consider lodging an amendment at stage 3 to ensure that the infrastructure and major developments that we design are future proofed appropriately.

I move amendment 228.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I will restrict my comments to amendment 229, which seeks to insert further considerations after section 32 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. It says:

“Where an application for planning permission is made by a local authority or a health board, the application must include evidence that matters of population growth and population projection have been considered in relation to the development to which the application relates.”

We are therefore talking about an evidenced position, for which evidence could be drawn from the local development plan and the local housing strategy.

Let me give an example of where such a provision would have helped, had it been in place; I will spare the authority in question its blushes. If a newly constructed primary school was found on day 1 to be grossly inadequate for the population’s needs, that situation would lead to additional costs, additional disturbance and more building.

Similarly—in particular, with the challenges in rural areas—an understanding of the population and its impacts can affect the capital building programmes that are undertaken by health authorities. That could be a factor in longer-term issues such as the relationship between housing and employment and—strange though it might seem; indeed, we will come to the matter later—one might also see it as an issue in relation to demolition of property, especially if, like me, you want previously populated areas, including many Highland glens and other rural parts, to be repopulated.

In a previous intervention, the minister encouraged us to stop and consider. Well, I hope that issues of population and population growth will be considered as material factors, and that members will support amendment 229.

Monica Lennon

Amendment 113 would require ministers to make regulations on the health impacts that would have to be considered. Basically, it is about ensuring that health impact assessments are carried out on major and national developments. I have lodged a package of health-related amendments because planning can impact on and, indeed, transform our physical and mental health. A health impact assessment could cover, for example, housing quality, access to natural environment, pollution, walking and cycling routes, car dependency—[Interruption.] Did someone want to come in there, convener?

The Convener

No.

Monica Lennon

I am sorry. I was getting distracted.

Such an assessment would bring into sharp focus the positive and negative impacts that development and planning decisions can have on health. It would provide another tool for planning decision makers. I believe it would be proportionate because it would apply only to national developments and major developments of a scale that would be likely to impact on significant numbers of people.

Daniel Johnson is unable to be here this morning, so I will speak to and move amendment 307 in his name. It seeks to ensure that MSPs, MPs and councillors in a locality are informed when a major development application is made in their constituency. The proposal is quite straightforward and is to be commended.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Amendment 114 aims to ensure that we have greater information and transparency with regard to a development’s impact on the capacity of local public services. I certainly know from experience that that is an issue in Fife, but I also believe it to be an issue across Scotland.

Amendment 114 would place a requirement on the developer to consult public authorities and to produce as part of their application a report setting out what the impacts would be and potential effects on capacity. Moreover, local authorities would have to take that into consideration when making a determination on a planning application and would be able, through the section 75 planning obligation, to have negotiations on the matter.

Yesterday evening, we received a note from Homes for Scotland that I think was helpful, even though it opposes amendment 114. It states:

“It is important to anticipate and plan for the infrastructure needs of Scotland’s growing population”.

Of course, we will all agree with that, but Homes for Scotland goes on to say that

“Alex Rowley’s amendment 114 seems to support the unsustainable tenet that those who build new homes should be responsible for their customers’ other needs.”

I argue that there is a responsibility not only on the developer but on the planning authority in that respect. If you are building a number of family homes that will house children, you have a responsibility to ensure that the education facilities are in place locally for those children. That does not necessarily mean that it is the developer’s responsibility to pay for a new school; however, if the development will put pressure on the capacity of a school, the developer might be responsible for ensuring that, say, an additional classroom is available.

Andy Wightman

The potentially interesting amendment 114 is modelled on the environmental impact assessments that are required in certain instances. One of the problems with such assessments, particularly with regard to major developments, is that they are drawn up and paid for by the applicant and are frequently found to be deficient. Indeed, there is a strong argument for taking something as important as environmental impact assessments out of the hands of applicants. The danger, I imagine, is that if the applicant must prepare a report about a proposal that would impact on education, health and leisure facilities, they will be motivated to try to underplay those impacts.

Surely planning authorities have provisions in planning law—section 75 agreements and so on—to ensure that services that consequentially need to be upgraded can be upgraded. I am aware of many planning determinations that are on hold and are awaiting the construction of a new school or a general practitioner surgery, for example. I wonder what would be the added value in requiring the applicant to prepare such a report.

Alex Rowley

The next point from Homes for Scotland feeds into that point. It said:

“Applicants, in any case, have no hope of being able to prepare this information in the absence of information from public authorities.”

The responsibility is on the applicant to have a dialogue with the public authorities, which would have to say what the implications of the development would be.

For example, in Kelty, the village where I live, there is a local development plan for a development of 900 houses. NHS Fife was consulted but gave no input, and there is no mention in the proposal of any impact on the local national health service. However, the local health centre has written repeatedly to the planning authority to object to the application on the basis that if the development goes ahead, it will not have enough GP capacity or physical capacity in its building to take people from that development or people who move into the village on to its books. It has been quite clear that the practice would have to close its list and it would not be able to provide the rounded medical services that would be required for those 900 homes.

The developer has agreed to make a contribution, but the planners and the head of planning in Fife responded that that could not be linked to a section 75 agreement because NHS Fife had not identified at the local plan stage that a health need would attach to those 900 houses.

My point is that putting the responsibility on the applicant to consult local public authorities would bring about greater transparency because the local health authority or whatever would have to respond. If it did not respond, it would be clear when it came to the application stage that it had not. The responsibility for taking the application to the next stage sits with the authority as well as with the applicant.

Homes for Scotland, which represents developers, also made another pressing point. It said:

“At present, the ability of those authorities to provide this information, or to calculate it in a way that is reliable and proportionate, is not where it should be.”

That needs to be addressed. A requirement that put the onus on the health or whatever authority to respond would mean that that information would have to be brought forward.

Homes for Scotland also said:

“Infrastructure requirements of planned development (both as shown on maps and as required by wider policies and targets) should be anticipated years ahead of the application stage by the public authorities responsible for meeting the needs of society.”

That is not happening and there is nowhere in the legislation that suggests that it should happen.

Monica Lennon

Will the member take an intervention?

The Convener

It must be very brief.

Monica Lennon

This has been a really helpful exchange. It strikes me that for major planning applications there is a requirement to do early consultation of stakeholders and communities. The type of question that members of the public ask when they come along to events—I am sure that members have all been to them—are about the impact on local schools, health services and so on. A developer that goes to such events but does not understand the area and has not done the baseline work to understand the data will not bring a well-thought-out proposal.

I accept that there might be issues to do with data sharing in the public sector. I imagine that putting the onus on the applicant can only improve good practice, but is Alex Rowley saying that the critique of the report would still lie with the planning authority, which would look at the numbers, understand the data and, we hope, get the best outcome for communities?

12:00

Alex Rowley

It would, and—

The Convener

Alex, will you try to bring your remarks to a close?

Alex Rowley

The Convener

No. She is going to move amendment 307.

Kevin Stewart

Ah. In that case, I will turn to that amendment now.

I am not aware of any particular calls for councillors, MSPs and MPs to be directly notified of planning applications. All local authorities publish weekly lists of new applications for planning permission, which are available on their websites, and information relating to major applications can easily be extracted from authorities’ online systems. Major developments will also have been subject to pre-application consultation, including local advertising, and might have been included in the consultation process for the local development plan.

I should warn members that, as drafted, amendment 307 would require notification of a range of subsidiary applications for approval in addition to the main planning permission, and list MSPs, in particular, might find themselves receiving more notifications than they might have expected. However, that is not a significant burden for planning authorities, and I am happy to support the amendment.

The Convener

I call Claudia Beamish to wind up.

Claudia Beamish

I do not wish to, convener.

Amendment 228, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 229 moved—[John Finnie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 229 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 0, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 229 disagreed to.

12:15

Amendment 113 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 113 agreed to.

Amendment 114 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 114 disagreed to.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

After section 14

Amendment 181 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 181 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Against

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 181 disagreed to.

The Convener

I am delighted to say that that brings us to the close of today’s consideration of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. Day 5 of stage 2 will take place on 31 October, when the committee’s target is the end of section 26. Any further amendments on provisions up to that point should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday 25 October, which is tomorrow.

Kevin Stewart

That cannot be right, convener. [Interruption.] Can I get clarity on where you intend to get to next time?

The Convener

Day 5 of stage 2 will take place next Wednesday, and the committee’s target is the end of section 26. I suspect that that is a bit ambitious, given where we are just now. Any further amendments on provisions up to that point should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday.

I thank the minister for attending and close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 12:17.

24 October 2018

Fifth meeting on amendments

Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 31 October 2018:

Fifth Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2

Fifth Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2

Fifth meeting on amendments transcript

The Convener

Agenda item 2 is day 5 of stage 2 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. I welcome to the meeting the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, and his officials. Some MSPs who are not committee members but who have lodged amendments to the bill will also be attending, and they are very welcome to the meeting.

After section 14

The Convener

Amendment 257, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 145 to 147.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

Good morning, convener. This group of amendments relates to a planning authority’s ability to refuse to even deal with an application. The current provisions are contained in section 39 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

The power applies where, within the previous two years, a similar application was refused by Scottish ministers as a result of a call-in or appeal or by the planning authority on local review, or where, in the absence of such appeal or review decisions, the planning authority has refused two previous similar applications. In this context, a “similar application” is one where the land and the proposal are the same or are substantially the same. The other criterion that applies is that there has been no

“significant change in the development plan”,

as far as it is relevant to the case,

“or in any other material consideration”.

That ensures that the decision is based on planning considerations and is not arbitrary.

I appreciate that there can be concerns in communities where the same or similar proposals for a site keep being submitted as applications despite previous refusal of permission. However, a second application can, in some circumstances, serve a useful purpose by proposing changes to a development that address the original grounds for refusal. As a proposal cannot be varied on appeal, that might be the best way of making an application better.

We also need to bear in mind that the planning system can, in the public interest, prevent a person from developing their land. As that affects their human rights, we need to be careful how we restrict their access to the decision-making process. There is no planning appeal procedure where a planning authority declines to determine an application.

Taking those issues into account, amendment 257 seeks to extend from the current two years to five years the period within which the power to decline to determine can apply. It is a significant extension; indeed, it more than doubles the time. Claudia Beamish’s amendment 145 would extend the period from two to 10 years.

The amendments will not change the position that authorities cannot decline to determine an application where there has been a significant change in the development plan or in other material considerations. However, that means that the original grounds for refusal have to be revisited in the light of the current position—indeed, they might no longer apply—and the planning authority will have to reach a considered and reasonable judgment on whether there have been any significant changes in circumstances. That does not mean reaching a view that the authority would make the same decision again—that would require the application to be processed and the position considered anew.

The longer the time since the original decision, the more likely it will be that some material consideration will have changed, and the more difficult it will be for the planning authority to be certain about whether there has been such a change. If it cannot be certain, it will have to process the application. It is not reasonable to suppose that circumstances will not change substantially over a period of 10 years and therefore it is unlikely that any cases could be declined at that timescale. I believe that a five-year period represents a more reasonable extension to the times involved.

Amendment 145 would also remove the right to make one similar application after a refusal before the ability to decline to determine applies. As I have said, I believe that a second application can be helpful in addressing concerns that have been raised, so I do not support such a provision.

Amendment 146 would require Scottish ministers to publish guidance on interpreting the definition of a “similar application”, and on what constitutes a “significant change” as regards the development plan and other material considerations. As I said in relation to a previous amendment, guidance cannot change the meaning of legislation; interpretation is a matter for the courts. In any case, guidance could not usefully address all the possible issues that might arise in every type of case.

Amendment 147 would introduce a specific power allowing ministers to introduce regulations to charge a higher fee for similar applications. Currently, fee regulations allow a zero fee where an applicant submits a largely similar application within 12 months of a decision on the previous application. We have already indicated our intention to reconsider the so-called free go in the fees review following the bill. However, given that planning fees are in principle about cost recovery, there is no obvious basis for charging a higher-than-standard fee for repeat applications, which can often serve a useful purpose.

We propose to impose a surcharge over and above the fee payable for a retrospective planning application. In such cases, however, there is a breach of planning control and the surcharge is in effect a penalty rather than a charge that relates to the cost of processing the application.

I therefore ask Claudia Beamish not to move her amendments in this group.

I move amendment 257.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Good morning. Amendment 145 aims to increase from two years to 10 years the time period that local authorities would have to deal with multiple similar applications for the same development. It also aims to ensure that the local authority has the discretion to decline to determine a second application within a 10-year period if it is deemed to be similar.

As the minister has already highlighted, section 39 of the 1997 act means that even if planning authorities have refused a planning application, they are usually obliged to deal with a second application for the same development, whether it is submitted a few months or a few years later. Planning authorities are unable to decline to determine the second application unless ministers have refused permission for development within the past two years.

The current “more than one” stipulation allows developers an opportunity to submit a second application within 12 months of their original application being refused. The local authority is obliged to deal with that second application. It is only when a third application is submitted that local authorities can decline to determine it.

That inability to decline to determine the second application is often referred to by community groups as a “free go” for the developer. Amendment 145 will give the planning authority the power to decline to determine the second application if it considers that appropriate. I note the minister’s comments on that, but I still wish to pursue the proposal in order to provide, from the perspective of communities, a more balanced approach.

The need for such an approach is even more pertinent when we consider that, at present, depending on the timing of the two previous applications, the planning authority may decline to determine a third application. If a third application is submitted more than two years after the original application was refused, the planning authority has to deal with it, and the process starts again. For communities, that leads to a war of attrition in some cases.

If the timescale in section 39 of the 1997 act remains two years, there will be the potential for the three-year application cycle to start every couple of years. Amendment 145, in my name, would extend the timescale to 10 years. I note that the minister has recognised the burden that the current timescale places on communities and that amendment 257 proposes an increase from two to five years, but I do not think that five years is long enough.

I note the minister’s comments about human rights. In my view, there is a human rights aspect for communities as well as for developers, and that needs to be considered. In addition, I think that I am correct in saying that amendment 257 does not address the developer’s opportunity to have a free go within 12 months by submitting a similar application.

By increasing the restriction on similar applications and changing the timescale from two years to 10, and by giving the local authority more scope to decline to determine applications, we would prevent local authorities and communities from being constantly worn down by repeat applications.

In my area, a developer who was first refused planning permission in 2009 subsequently submitted two further applications for the same site and has recently appealed in relation to a third application. The community has experienced nearly 10 years of relentless pursuit of the site. I have experience of the issue as a community activist, too, because for seven years I was involved in fighting applications for inappropriate opencast activity.

The current process prevents communities from moving on when there is the threat that previously rejected unsuitable proposals will return. The uncertainty that the current situation creates can affect investment in the area.

Consideration must also be given to the money that planning departments must spend on reviewing subsequent applications.

Over the years, I have raised the issue with the Scottish Government a number of times. In 2015 I met Alex Neil in an attempt to address the frequency issue, but I am sad to say that there was no appetite to change the timescale at that stage. I hope that we can make the change in the bill; I recognise that the minister has moved on the issue since our discussions before the summer recess.

In its stage 1 report on the bill, the committee noted, in relation to local development plans:

“we are content with the proposals to move to a 10 year cycle”,

the aim of which is

“to provide for greater connection between the LDP and local outcome improvement plans which should provide for a more coherent vision for communities.”

If the time period in relation to repeat applications reflected the local development plan cycle and local authorities were given the power to decline to determine a second application for a similar development, we would help to secure that long-term vision for Scotland.

In the context of my attempt to restrict the occurrence of repeat applications, with amendment 145 amending the timescale, amendment 146 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance on what constitutes a “significant change” in a planning application.

There is currently no statutory definition of “significant change”, as the minister said in his remarks on amendment 257. It is at the planning authority’s discretion to ascertain whether an application is similar to a previous one. I note the minister’s comments about the courts, but I think that guidance would provide for consistent and confident decision making on the part of planning authorities. Guidance would also inform developers about the level of change that would be expected before a subsequent application could be considered.

Amendment 147 is part of my package of amendments to address serial applications, which includes amendments 145 and 146. We must look at fees and the cost of submitting a similar application. I propose that if a developer makes a further application in the 10-year period that is proposed in amendment 145, and the application is found to be similar to the previous application, the planning authority should have the discretion to apply an appropriately significant fee.

If amendment 147 is agreed to, I suggest—in parenthesis—that it might be better to consider imposing a fine, given that the aim of the proposed approach is to remove the incentive to lodge a similar application to one that has been declined or is still under review.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Good progress has been made in the context of Claudia Beamish’s proposals: the minister has moved from his predecessor’s position.

I welcome the local example that Claudia Beamish has given. I do not know whether all members of the committee received the email from Kilmacolm residents association yesterday. I do not know the local circumstances, but the email talks about a situation where a volume house builder has tried three times to get planning permission on a green-belt site. It has been refused twice by the planning authority and an appeal has been dismissed by the reporter. The email talks about the culture of developers submitting repeat applications until they get what they want. I will support the minister’s amendment; I will also support Claudia Beamish’s amendments. The amendments will not only improve planning practice but help to change that culture. I believe that all of us want to strengthen the plan-led system, and minimising repeat applications would go some way towards that.

09:30

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

Amendment 257 deals with the important issue of serial applications, and I am pleased to note that the minister has responded to concerns that I and, I am sure, other members have raised. That is a positive development.

What is not well known at the moment is that planning authorities have discretion. It is not well known among communities, or even among some councillors, that local authorities currently have that power. I am very pleased indeed to see that the period in question will, if amendment 257 is agreed to, be extended to five years. With respect to Claudia Beamish’s amendment 145, I think that a five-year period strikes the right balance and reflects the issues involved, including the fact that, as the minister said, there is no planning appeal procedure where the planning authority exercises its discretion to decline to determine an application. The five-year period strikes that balance, and I am happy to support it. It is a welcome amendment that communities across Scotland will support.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy that Ms Ewing has highlighted the discretion that already exists. I have to say that, at times, it is frustrating for me as the minister to have to write to people—many of whom should be in the know, including elected members of local authorities—about the discretionary powers that exist.

I do not want to sound like a broken record, but I must reiterate the point about guidance in relation to all that we are doing here. Guidance cannot change the meaning of legislation—it just cannot. As I said, interpretation is a matter for the courts. I have said again and again that guidance cannot usefully address all the issues that might arise in every type of case.

Claudia Beamish

Will the minister give way?

Kevin Stewart

Very briefly.

Claudia Beamish

The minister says that guidance cannot change the meaning of legislation, but surely it can reflect what the bill says in terms of developing clarity. I believe that amendment 146 would achieve that and would help those who make planning decisions to do so in a consistent way.

Kevin Stewart

As I said, guidance cannot change the meaning of primary legislation. That is a matter for the courts. Beyond that, as I have just pointed out, we cannot set out in guidance every single aspect that may or may not occur. That theme will arise again later today, just as it has arisen in the past. Guidance is not the way to deal with the issue at all.

Amendment 257 proposes an increase in the timescale. With regard to Ms Beamish’s amendment 145, we would see material consideration changes, and maybe even development plan changes, within the 10-year timescale that she envisages. It would not be reasonable to suppose that circumstances will not change substantially within that lengthy period. That is why the five-year period is the logical one to deal with here.

Monica Lennon

Will the minister give way?

Kevin Stewart

Very briefly.

Monica Lennon

I will be brief, minister. Were the same arguments not levied against your proposal to move from a five-year to a 10-year local development plan cycle, and have concerns in that respect not been overcome?

Kevin Stewart

There are real differences between what is being proposed here and what was proposed with regard to the local development plan cycle. The idea behind the move from five to 10 years for the cycle was to ensure that people were able to concentrate on delivery instead of having to plan constantly. With regard to Claudia Beamish’s amendment 145, we will see very real changes happening over the period of time that she has proposed. I think that the five-year scenario is the logical one, and I therefore ask folk to support amendment 257 in my name and to reject the other amendments in the group.

Such facilities allow individuals with complex needs the basic right to be included in society. They enable people to go out shopping for the day or to have a trip to the cinema and go to the toilet safely and comfortably, which is something that most of us take for granted. If amendment 323 is agreed to, there will also be an economic benefit, because at the moment many people cannot go shopping or to the cinema or other facilities because they know that they will not be able to use a toilet if they require it. Currently, there are only 172 accessible toilets in Scotland, only 10 of which are in Edinburgh. I am pleased to say that one of them is in the Scottish Parliament.

I will move amendment 323 in my name to ensure that disabled people and older people are included in plans for large-scale developments. I ask the committee to look favourably on Mary Fee’s amendment 323A.

Claudia Beamish

Amendment 141 is consequential on amendment 140. Committee members and others present might be pleased to hear that I do not intend to move it, because I have had reassurances from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in relation to amendment 140, on permitted development rights, which I did not move.

Amendment 331 is designed to ensure that the planning system can be used to enable and support local decision makers to explicitly weigh up the long-term cost implications and climate change impacts of development proposals against potentially competing considerations such as shorter-term economic considerations. The amendment is supported by Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, which is a broad coalition of groups including trade unions, community groups and churches as well as non-governmental organisations.

It is important that decisions in housing and transport planning, for example, are based on comprehensive information regarding the environmental impacts of infrastructure. Frankly, current practice is generally poor when it comes to considerations of lifecycle energy use and contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

09:45

Requiring national and major developments to conduct a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment would help decision makers to make more informed judgments when weighing up project proposals, leading to more sustainable development and avoiding investment that will not serve us all well in the future. Amendment 331 would oblige a planning authority to consider

“the likely impact of the development’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions on achieving national greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets”.

Amendment 331 refers to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, so it might be that further consideration must be undertaken, even if there is a keenness on the amendment, given that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill is currently being considered by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee.

As amendment 331 says,

“‘lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the emissions associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of a development.”

I believe strongly that Scotland must future proof in that area.

Amendment 230 would require community open space to be a condition of planning permission for a development of four or more dwellings. This is a probing amendment. It defines “community open space” as space with

“green infrastructure or civic areas”

and excludes parking spaces from falling under that definition. It is about creating positive living spaces for people, setting the tone for more communal environments, with potential benefits in terms of health, air quality, the local economy, inequality issues and general mental wellbeing.

Homes for Scotland highlighted concerns about amendment 230 in relation to a risk to already marginal activity that might be made unviable. As a representative for South Scotland, which is partly rural, I understand the concern, but I believe strongly that Scottish residents have a right to public community spaces where they live. In a similar way to the way in which amendment 227, which has already been considered, dealt with the play sufficiency assessment, amendment 230 highlights the importance of our living spaces and place making, with an emphasis on the need for community space in our housing developments.

Finally, I want to speak positively about Mark Ruskell’s amendment 318.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Before you do that, I would like to ask about amendment 230. The amendment says that the requirement to provide community open space should apply to any development of four or more houses. A development of four houses is a very small development. How on earth is someone who is building only four houses meant to provide community open space in every case?

You said that this is a probing amendment, so I do not know whether you intend to move it. Perhaps you could indicate that in your response.

Claudia Beamish

I would like to hear other members’ comments before I make a decision about whether to move the amendment. That might seem to contradict what I said about its being a probing amendment, but I think that it is important to work out how we get community space.

I appreciate that, from the perspective of a developer, the space that would be required under the amendment is space in which a house could be built in what might be a marginal area. However, frankly, there are often developments in which houses are built very close together and without any viable community space for the people who live there. The issues around loneliness, mental health and so on are profoundly important for communities.

I recognise that four might not be the right number of houses, but that is a way of starting off a discussion. I leave that where it is and will see where we go with it.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 318 is significant with regard to protecting our communities against air pollution. I appreciate that he has revised the position that he took in a previous amendment, and that the approach that he is taking is now only about major developments. Having taken evidence in the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee throughout last year on air pollution, I know that this is a serious issue for communities and that air pollution is a contributory factor in the deaths of significant numbers of people in Scotland every year. It must be addressed as a health issue.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Good morning. It is great to be back, and I thank the committee for having me.

Amendment 208, in my name, concerns the proliferation of housing development in my constituency and in many other constituencies. I should say at the outset that Liberal Democrats are not instinctively or ideologically opposed to new housing—indeed, Edinburgh and Scotland need new housing. Amendment 208 speaks to the correspondence that I have received from many constituents and community groups, and the issue that the amendment covers resonates throughout all local authorities with Liberal Democrat members, who have submitted responses to me during the bill process.

Amendment 208 is about strengthening the presumption of the use of brownfield land in housing development. In Edinburgh, for example, brownfield land was owned for development as early as 2003—prior to the crash—but the land has not been built on. Lots of people bought houses in some of the outpost communities that were established, with the expectation that such communities would grow up around them, that schools would be built and that transport infrastructure would be enhanced. However, there was then the economic downturn and developers moved away from plans to develop the land. Instead, developers favoured plans to develop more lucrative green-belt land, where they could exact a higher premium for their purchase.

Amendment 208 would spell out to developers that they need to give due consideration to development on brownfield land, and developers would need to give adequate reasons for dismissing such development. The amendment would give local authorities the power to reject a development on greenfield land, if it deems the land to have

“intrinsic natural or cultural heritage value”.

That speaks to many developments, particularly those in my constituency but in other members’ constituencies, too.

I am happy to be here, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to amendment 208.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

We are discussing the determination of applications, so people might be a bit surprised to see the word “demolition” feature in amendment 294, in my name. However, it concerns planning authorities’ ability to grant

“permission for a development that involves the demolition of a building”.

Amendment 294 refers to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, which is a commendable piece of legislation that ensures that high standards are applied. If a landlord is not prepared to put in place those high standards, they are enforced by way of a repairing standard enforcement order.

I am dealing with a live case. The Highlands and Islands, as well as many urban areas, are blessed with a number of rogue landlords, and there is a strong history of abuse in the relationship with housing and occupancy. At the moment, strange though it might seem, a rogue landlord, rather than undertake the work after receiving a repairing standard enforcement order, could seek to circumvent—someone has sought to circumvent—putting in place the requirements of a repairing standard enforcement order by applying for demolition. Amendment 294 would ensure that, were such an order in place, demolition could not take place.

I will confine my comments simply to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 335 relates to the Ramsar convention. For those who do not know, Ramsar sites are internationally important wetland sites that are identified for protection under the Ramsar convention. The Scottish Government’s policy is to apply the same level of protection to Ramsar sites as that which is afforded to designated Natura sites.

The legislation in question is the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994, which gave legal protection to Natura sites in Scotland. The habitat regulations ensure that any plan or project that might damage a Natura site must be assessed and can go ahead only if certain strict conditions are met. That process is known as the habitats regulations appraisal, one aspect of which is an appropriate assessment. Given that Ramsar sites are not listed specifically in the habitat regulations, it is unclear how the Scottish Government’s policy to give such sites the same level of protection as that of Natura sites should be implemented.

In a previous session of Parliament, my colleague, Mark Ruskell, proposed an amendment to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill on that very point and the response from Allan Wilson was:

“Ramsar sites in Scotland are already well protected through existing designations so there is, strictly speaking, no need for the kind of additional mechanism that Mark Ruskell proposed”.—[Official Report, 5 May 2004; c 8025.]

However, that is incorrect, because the listed features of Ramsar sites in Scotland are not always covered by underlying designations or, in some cases, are protected only by a lower-level site of special scientific interest designation, which does not provide the equivalent level of protection as for Natura sites.

The Planning (Scotland) Bill is an opportunity to demonstrate the Scottish Government’s commitment to an important international obligation. I hope that the minister will seize that opportunity.

Graham Simpson

Amendment 324 deals with biodiversity. I have spoken quite a bit about the need to deliver more houses in the right places, but that should not be at the expense of biodiversity. The concept of net biodiversity gain is increasingly well recognised in environmental assessments. It requires any development to leave biodiversity in a better state than it was before the development. It is particularly important to secure that requirement as there is currently no statutory system for ensuring that impacts on biodiversity are mitigated outwith designated sites. Residual, cumulative effects are particularly hard to address. A requirement to provide net biodiversity gain would help Scotland to meet its obligations and targets.

England’s 25-year environment plan states:

“We will seek to embed a ‘net environmental gain’ principle for development to deliver environmental improvements locally and nationally.”

Scotland should also be looking to achieve that.

Amendment 324 is not particularly taxing. It provides that if a planning authority thinks that there could be an effect on biodiversity as a result of a development, it should consider that—just “consider” it. Having considered that, the authority should grant permission only if it is satisfied that there will be a net positive effect on biodiversity from the development. If we want to improve habitats and make great places for people to live, that would be one way of doing it. Amendment 324 ties in nicely with other amendments that focus on health.

Amendment 323, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, deals with the provision of specialist toilet facilities in large developments. The amendment is a thing of beauty—much like Mr Balfour. We initially thought that the issue might sit better in building regulations, but on reflection, we think that planning can help. We support amendment 323A, in the name of Mary Fee, which would add to the list of buildings that amendment 323 covers.

I strongly support Alex Cole-Hamilton—I have not often been able to say that—and amendment 208 in his name. We can help to regain trust in our planning system by ensuring that development takes place on brownfield instead of land that was previously green belt, where that is achievable. Amendment 208 would help to achieve that aim. An application to build on green belt could not be approved unless there was a statement by the applicant setting out why the proposed development could not be achieved on brownfield land.

I lodged an amendment on brownfield land that I did not move. If Alex Cole-Hamilton moves amendment 208, he will have the support of the Conservatives.

Amendment 318, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on air quality zones, has the best of intentions, but despite its being reworded, there could still be unintended consequences. If amendment 318 is agreed to, almost any road or large industrial development, or large retail, restaurant or housing development, could be rejected on the ground that they might cause some pollution. As I mentioned previously, we want to protect the environment, but it is a question of balance.

Mark Ruskell

All that amendment 318 requires is consideration of adequate mitigations. If a road was being built that would be fine, but there would have to be consideration of what mitigation there was to be in respect of air pollution. That reflects the legal requirements of air quality management areas and taking decisions that are consistent with that. It is a matter not of stopping developments, but of ensuring that we mitigate the impact of things that are being constructed.

10:00

Graham Simpson

Yes. It is a question of unintended consequences that could be used to stop things that would be desirable. I have no idea what will happen if the amendment is defeated, but I simply urge Mr Ruskell to think again before stage 3 and to have further discussions about it.

Amendment 294, in the name of John Finnie, states that planning authorities

We need to get a response from the minister shortly. Graham Simpson has still to continue with his contribution.

Graham Simpson

I will do so briefly, convener. It is good to spark a debate, however.

Claudia Beamish has mentioned green spaces and mental health. Every single member of the committee is in favour of green spaces and every single member of the committee sees their value in helping to prevent mental health problems, but we must look at amendment 230’s wording, which deals with potentially tiny developments.

Claudia Beamish represents a rural area, where there could be, for example, small courtyard developments of four or five properties at which there would not be space to provide “community open space”, however valuable doing so might be. I will certainly not support amendment 230, if Claudia Beamish presses it.

Sadly, I cannot support Claudia Beamish’s amendment 331 either. It would be impossible for a planning authority to assess the

“likely impact of the development’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions on achieving national greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets”.

That would be too far too onerous for councils.

Mary Fee (West Scotland) (Lab)

I will speak to amendment 323A, which is my amendment, and in support of amendment 323, which is in the name of Jeremy Balfour.

Amendments 323 and 323A serve to strengthen the bill by including a statutory provision for inclusion of changing places toilet facilities in certain large new developments. Such toilets are essential for people who live with profound and multiple learning difficulties, or with disabilities that severely limit mobility, and for people who are unable to use standard accessible toilets—that is, disabled toilets.

In February 2009, the British Standards Institution’s BS 8300 “Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people—Code of practice” was published. The code provides guidance on the design of buildings to ensure that they met the needs of disabled people, and outlined the specifications for changing places toilets. Amendment 323 attempts to enshrine in legislation the recommended BS dimension for such toilets. As the amendment outlines, those toilets should be a minimum of

“12 square metres, to allow up to two carers to assist an adult to use the toilet”.

My amendment 323A would supplement and strengthen amendment 323. BS 8300 recommends nine categories of larger buildings and complexes that should provide a changing places toilet, and amendment 323 covers four of those categories. Amendment 323A adheres to the BSI recommendation to standardise provision of changing places toilets by making them a legal requirement in

“Major transport termini and interchanges ... Cultural centres, such as museums, concert halls and art galleries ... Stadia and large auditoria”

and motorway service facilities. At present, the provision of changing places toilets is sporadic and inadequate because there is no legal requirement for large buildings and complexes to provide facilities that comply with BS 8300.

To give one small example, I note that there are only two changing places toilets on Scotland’s road networks. Both are located on the M74: one is at the Cairn Lodge services near Lesmahagow and the other is at Annandale Water services near Lockerbie.

There is growing awareness about the necessity for changing places toilets. It is estimated that more than a quarter of a million people across the UK need changing places toilets to enable them to get out of the house and go about their day-to-day activities. I believe that the Scottish Parliament should lead the rest of the UK on the issue.

From an equalities and human rights perspective, agreement to amendments 323 and 323A would ensure that our public buildings, shared spaces and the wider built environment are more accessible, inclusive and responsive to the basic needs of all members of our society.

Changing places toilets are vital and potentially life-changing facilities. Their introduction in new developments would ensure greater accessibility and inclusivity for carers and individuals who require those facilities. The reality is that without access to a suitable changing bench and hoist, many people with complex disabilities are forced to choose between lying on an unhygienic toilet floor or becoming trapped in their own home.

I urge the committee to support amendments 323 and amendment 323A.

Kevin Stewart

I will start by explaining amendment 263, which is largely technical, and then I will address the policy issues that are raised by other amendments in the group.

Section 58 of the 1997 act deals with the situation in which planning permission expires without development having begun. The default is three years from when permission is granted, but section 58(4)(c) provides an exemption to avoid a temporary planning permission with a very short life having a default requirement to begin development by a date after the permission has expired.

These days, however, even large-scale and long-term developments can have time limits, decommissioning strategies or reinstatement requirements specified in planning permission and thus, technically, will be temporary. The risks are that the exemption might also apply to some of those permissions, or that there is uncertainty over whether or not it does. That would mean that such permissions could exist permanently, with communities and planning authorities not knowing whether or when a development might be started. However, amendment 263 will remove that exemption to make temporary planning permission subject to the normal rules on when it expires. I hope that the committee will support the amendment.

The remainder of the amendments in the group seek in one way or another to limit planning authorities’ ability to determine applications for planning permission, according to the circumstances of individual cases. Mr Simpson mentioned unintended consequences; I think that a number of the amendments would certainly have such consequences.

I have made it clear throughout this process that I do not agree with centralising and inflexible approaches—above all, because they do not allow the authority to balance the different issues that arise in order to arrive at the best overall decision. That said, I will make an exception for amendment 323, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and Mary Fee’s amendment 323A to that amendment. I recognise the importance of changing places toilets to the lives of people who have profound and multiple learning disabilities and to their families and carers, so I thank Mr Balfour for raising the issue with support from Mary Fee, and for working constructively with officials to ensure that we have the best possible amendment.

I certainly want to ensure that any new large public building is provided with such facilities, but we must be proportionate and avoid anomalies such as requiring every new classroom extension to have its own changing places toilet. Amendment 323 provides for regulations to refine the developments to which the requirement would apply and the specification of the facilities required, so that things can be kept up to date with changes in technology and standards. That is very helpful.

Under my instruction, the Scottish Government has already been working to introduce such facilities through the building standards system, with a working group having been set up to develop proposals for public consultation. We will need to work through how the two regimes should interact, but I ask the committee to support the amendments in the name of Jeremy Balfour and Mary Fee.

I also support the principle behind John Finnie’s amendment 331, which relates to protection of Ramsar sites. Of course, I cannot comment on any live planning application that might have inspired the amendment—

I beg your pardon.

The Government has already confirmed that its policy is to give the same level of protection to Ramsar sites as to European protected sites, and under amendment 335, it would be not a matter of policy but a legal restriction.

For technical reasons, however, I cannot support amendment 335, as drafted. First, the approach is not ideal, because European sites are supported through regulations rather than through primary legislation. As the majority of Ramsar sites in Scotland are also European sites, I am concerned about duplicating assessments unnecessarily.

Furthermore, the language and terminology require technical adjustment. I wonder whether Mr Finnie has fully considered whether transposing the wording that is drafted for European protected sites will technically work for Ramsar sites, given that they are designated in a different way. I also think that we should ensure that any definitions are consistent with those elsewhere in legislation. I will be happy to work with Mr Finnie on the matter, and I therefore ask him not to move amendment 335, in order to allow further discussion.

Amendment 80, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, demonstrates the difficulties of attempting to set a new basis for determination of applications without also making it clear how it might fit with the existing duty to determine applications for planning permission in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The amendment does not set out what is considered to be housing that is suitable for older people and those with disabilities, or even how old those “older people” might be. Not all disabilities require physical adaptations to be made to a house, so the assumption could apply to all housing, as it would be suitable for some older people and some people with disabilities. Even if some accessibility standards were applied, the houses could be completely inappropriate for the location. In what circumstances could the planning authority override such a presumption in favour of agreement? That has not been made clear.

The committee has agreed a range of amendments that will ensure that housing for older people and disabled people has a prominent place in the development plan in addition to existing policy. Decisions that are based on those plans and policies should therefore deliver appropriate housing for older people and disabled people, having balanced all the other material considerations that might arise. It is not helpful to disrupt that system, so I ask the committee not to support amendment 80.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, through amendment 208, would like anyone applying for planning permission in the green belt to identify some brownfield land that was not suitable for their development, and explain why they did not choose to develop there. That would apply not only to new development but to anyone who wanted to extend their existing home in the green belt or, perhaps, create facilities to help people enjoy the green belt.

Scottish planning policy states that it is up to planning authorities, in preparing local development plans, to decide whether to have a green belt in their area, to decide on the policies for supporting it and to define appropriate development within it. That will include appropriate protection for the natural or cultural heritage value of the land, as they see fit, so a decision based on the development plan will give those issues appropriate weight.

Where a development plan promoted the use of brownfield sites over any green-belt land that had been designated, one would expect the applicant to make a case for why they had gone for development in the green belt, if alternative sites were possible. If a planning authority has gone to the trouble of designating a green belt and having policies to protect it that fit the needs of its area, it seems that it would be inappropriate to fetter its ability to decide whether to grant planning permission in the way that is proposed by amendment 208.

John Finnie’s amendment 294 appears to be trying to use the planning system to protect tenants. However, if a landlord decided not to comply with a repairing standard enforcement order and instead to demolish the building, having planning permission would not be a green light to do so. Planning permission would not in itself override tenants’ rights, although in some cases an intention to demolish a building, even if it is in perfectly good condition, might be grounds for eviction.

Amendment 294 also refers to work that was required under a repairing standard enforcement order not being completed. Only the housing and property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland can determine whether such works have been completed. Procedurally, that leaves the planning decision dependent on a determination of the tribunal, and could create a situation in which planning permission could not be granted to demolish a building that was unsafe, for example, or which was blocking other needed development.

Amendment 294 meddles in a complex area in which decisions really need to be taken case by case, with regard to the planning issues and to the relevant tenancy provisions.

John Finnie

I note the minister’s comments and I concur with him that it is a complex area that involves the housing and property chamber and a decision ultimately by local authorities. Would he accept that this is not an academic argument? I am not drawing him into a particular case but, as things stand, a rogue landlord can circumvent housing legislation by applying to demolish their property; that is simply unfair.

Kevin Stewart

I am willing to speak to Mr Finnie further on the issue. However, as I have said on previous occasions and at the very beginning of this discussion, there are unintended consequences to amendment 294, as there are to many other amendments in the group. I ask John Finnie not to press amendment 294, but I am willing to talk to him further about it.

The other amendments in the group likewise deal with important issues, but much broader ones, which may have a range of solutions, and are therefore more appropriately dealt with in policy and through the judgment of planning authorities. Many of these amendments, as drafted, would have significant impacts, which I hope are unintended, but which highlight the difficulty of such prescription.

My view is that the review of the national planning framework and Scottish planning policy is the best place to consider these issues in more detail and with the flexibility that is needed. I hope that members will agree to work with me on that approach.

I will start with Mr Simpson’s amendment 324 and Ms Beamish’s amendment 331. The environmental impact assessment regulations already require an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of relevant developments and consideration of any measures to avoid, prevent, reduce, or offset those effects. Those regulations have their own criteria for determining which developments need an assessment. They do not align exactly with national and major developments but they ensure that relevant projects are covered, including some local developments.

Requiring a separate assessment through planning legislation risks duplicating rather than streamlining procedures, with no opportunity for screening to allow authorities to focus on development that will have significant impacts.

Both biodiversity assessment and measurement of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are highly specialised areas that can quickly become very complicated and could introduce significant cost and delay for applicants, who will have to provide additional supporting information with their applications.

It is, of course, important that significant development projects support our targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and are resilient to the impacts of climate change in the long term. The EIA includes an assessment of impacts relating to climate. There is not a specific requirement to undertake a lifecycle analysis, and methods can vary, but it is normal for such assessments to cover all phases of development. I do not want to duplicate that, but perhaps we can arrive at a more proportionate solution.

For example, I agree that it would be useful to undertake such an assessment of all the proposed national developments to be included in national planning framework 4 and I would be happy with an amendment in those terms, so that the most significant long-term infrastructure projects in Scotland would be assessed in that way. However, I am more cautious about major developments where the consideration may not always be relevant or add value to existing assessments.

Scottish planning policy states that the planning system should seek benefits for biodiversity for new development, where that is possible. Mr Simpson’s amendment has no doubt been informed by the UK Government’s approach to net biodiversity gain. However, the apparent simplicity of the amendment belies a complex policy area. Every proposed development may have an effect on biodiversity, however slight, so the amendment would require measurements to ensure net positive effects on biodiversity for every development—every home extension, every illuminated sign and every equipment store—and if such measurements could not be secured, planning permission would have to be refused. Although I understand the intention behind the amendment, it could seriously and fundamentally risk stalling development of all kinds and undermining economic growth across Scotland. I believe that primary legislation is too blunt an instrument to reflect the complexities involved in the issue.

Graham Simpson

That is the second time that the minister has referred to house extensions in his arguments. If I were to build an extension to my house, I can assure him that there would be no biodiversity effects. He is going a bit too far in his objections.

Kevin Stewart

A number of today’s amendments would have the unintended consequences that I spoke about. I am not going too far or scaremongering; those would be the consequences of the amendments for very small developments. The committee has to take cognisance of that point. I am willing to have further discussions and I have already said that we can work together on national planning framework 4 and national planning developments. A number of amendments in this group have unintended consequences and I hope that folk will recognise that I am pointing them out—they are realities.

Mark Ruskell’s amendment 318 on air quality could effectively ban major development in some of our larger urban areas and limit a planning authority’s ability to use a range of solutions to mitigate or offset the effects of new development. A major source of air pollution is transport, which is why Scottish planning policy sets out a framework for decision making on new development that is designed to reduce the need to travel and encourage sustainable transport options, therefore reducing transport emissions. It could be argued that the amendment could lead to perverse effects whereby major developments are forced to locate in less sustainable out-of-town locations to avoid air quality zones, even though action could have been taken to mitigate any effects on air quality. The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommended that air quality should be considered in the review of the national planning framework. We will work to ensure that NPF4 aligns with the package of measures in Scotland’s strategy, “Cleaner Air for Scotland: The Road to a Healthier Future”.

I am glad that Ms Beamish has said that she will not move amendment 141, because it would, in effect, have given SEPA powers to be the decision maker, with a veto in some cases.

Amendment 230, which is also from Ms Beamish, would remove flexibility from planning authorities and is not clear enough about what it requires. The Scottish Government previously commissioned research and carried out a detailed consultation on setting requirements for open space at national level. A number of practical barriers to implementation were highlighted, including the differences between urban and rural areas and the amount of community open space that is already available. Opinion differs over how the amount of open space that is required should be calculated and there are wider concerns about the impact on development viability, as Mr Gibson and Mr Simpson have pointed out.

10:30

Research that was carried out for Scottish Natural Heritage on the development of green space standards found that

“many of the earlier open space standards have been implicated in the creation of poor spaces and developments with little sense of place.”

However, amendment 230 does not address those concerns. It does not say how much open space would be required and it would not allow off-site provision or improvement of existing green space in the area. Those are often good solutions for urban developments, especially flats, where open space cannot be provided on site.

I recognise that since our most recent consultation on the issue there has been renewed interest in a national standard for green infrastructure and some potential models have been developed. I strongly believe that policy is the appropriate place to include detailed but flexible requirements to make sure that open space truly enhances our places.

I ask the committee to support my amendment 263 and amendments 323 and 323A in the names of Jeremy Balfour and Mary Fee, and I urge the committee not to support the other amendments in the group.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

The minister talked about unintended consequences. I am sure that members will listen to his views carefully and those who have lodged amendments will take a view as to whether they wish to press or move them. If they do that, I am sure that, as he said, the minister will be open to discussions about how they may be refined at stage 3.

I support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 318. In my view, it is proportionate. The minister argues that it would not allow for mitigation measures but, with pre-application procedures and good conversations on the planning application, the point is that it prohibits planning permission being granted only where, in the planning authority’s opinion, it would

“have an adverse effect on the achievement of the limit value”

in an air quality management zone. Those things can all be resolved before the formal application is submitted. Amendment 318 is a proportionate amendment to ensure that we are not in breach of the law.

I cannot support Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 80. It invites planning authorities to proceed on an assumption that permission “will normally be granted” for two very worthy types of development, but there are risks that that could override valuable provisions in the local development plan. In extremis, it could provide that such developments may be built in the middle of parks, for example.

I understand where Claudia Beamish is coming from with her amendment 230. For example, the Edinburgh Northern and Leith constituency, which is in the Lothian area that I represent, is the most densely populated part of Scotland and there are many gap sites that need to be filled. There are tenement properties that by definition cannot provide community open space within the footprint of the development, although I note that the amendment says:

“In this section ‘community open space’ means space within or on the edge of settlements”.

In theory, one could apply to build some tenements in Leith with the community open space being five miles away in the Pentland hills. There is important stuff in the amendment, but I cannot support it being in primary legislation.

Monica Lennon

On a point of clarification, I think that the minister said that Claudia Beamish’s amendment 230 mentions the footprint of sites and does not allow for off-site provision, but Andy Wightman has helpfully pointed out that she provides that definition of “community open space”. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, but I agree that there is work to be done on the amendment.

Kevin Stewart

Convener, may I clarify something? Amendment 230 does not say how much open space would be required and it does not allow off-site provision or improvement of existing green space in the area. I am pointing out these things. I have had legal officials and others working on the bill and looking at the purpose and effect of all the amendments, and I have shared purpose and effect documents with members. Those are the situations—there are unintended consequences. I am pointing out the effects of the amendments.

Andy Wightman

I thank the minister for that intervention.

I do not dispute that clarification. Perhaps I misquoted Mark Ruskell, because I have been told to be brief, but I think that we understand that the amendment is about assessing planning applications in air quality management areas.

On Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 323 and Mary Fee’s related amendment 323A, I echo the minister’s remarks and commend Jeremy Balfour and Mary Fee for those amendments. The committee has discussed at length the fact that access to toilet facilities is absolutely crucial for public health and should not be an afterthought. We have heard that equality impact assessments are at times not robust enough; indeed, the equality impact assessment for the bill has been criticised. That is a bit of a weak link that we need to look at. I support those amendments. Mary Fee’s work on changing places has been tremendous. I congratulate the minister, too, on his commitment to that issue.

That takes me back to a previous amendment in Alison Johnstone’s name, on which we had another lively debate. She was trying to ensure that planning authorities consider the provision of public toilets in their areas, and she proposed that a statement should go in local plans. She was successful—I think that the vote was four to three in favour—but I recall that the minister argued against that. I hope that there has been a change of heart, as that would be positive.

On amendment 80—

Jeremy Balfour

Convener, I will not move amendment 80 today. I hope that I can do some work to clarify the situation before stage 3.

Monica Lennon

I welcome that, as it is sensible. We support the spirit of amendment 80, but there are problems with the way in which it has been framed. It uses the term “assumption”, which is normally difficult in development management terms.

I support Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 208, so well done, Alex.

I did not expect there to be so much discussion on Claudia Beamish’s amendment 230. As she set out, it is a probing amendment. It shows the difficulties that there are in the perception of what might be a reasonable contribution to community open space. Based on my reading of the amendment, that would not necessarily be about what is in the footprint of an application site but about its wider contribution within a town or settlement. That would be particularly so if there were to be a number—or an accumulation—of smaller developments, all of which were high density but none of which made a contribution to community open space. That could lead to difficulties. In saying that, I was not desperately trying to salvage Claudia Beamish’s amendment—that is a matter for her—but I welcome the discussion that we have had around that.

Amendment 80 not moved.

Amendment 141 not moved.

Amendment 208 moved—[Alex Cole-Hamilton].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 208 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 208 agreed to.

Amendment 294 not moved.

Amendment 324 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 324 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 324 disagreed to.

Amendment 258 moved—[Lewis Macdonald].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 258 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 258 agreed to.

Amendment 331 not moved.

10:45

The Convener

Amendment 323, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 230 not moved.

Section 15 agreed to.

10:47 Meeting suspended.

10:53 On resuming—

Section 16—Schemes of delegation

The Convener

Amendment 259, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 260 to 262, 332, 264 and 265, 321, 266 and 16.

Kevin Stewart

Throughout the review of the planning system, our consultations and stage 1 of the bill, I made clear that, following the passage of the bill, we will consult on revising the structure and levels of planning fees and charges, in light of the new structure of the planning system.

We will do so in recognition of the need to move towards full-cost recovery, so that the reformed planning system can be appropriately funded. Currently, income from planning applications does not meet the costs of processing those applications.

A number of possible changes to fees have been suggested. The bill makes a number of adjustments to the powers to make regulations about fees, to ensure that we will be able to implement those suggestions—if they are supported in the consultation that will follow. The amendments in my name in this group add to those adjustments.

One suggestion is that applicants should be able to pay a higher fee for a fast-track service. An authority would probably need to provide a dedicated staff resource to provide such a service without detriment to other applications.

We already have sufficient powers to charge a different fee for a service, but currently applicants can agree only to an extended timescale for determining an application, and they can do so only after submitting their application and paying the appropriate fee. That timescale relates to when the applicant can bring an appeal or request a review on the ground of non-determination.

Amendments 259 to 262 will allow an authority and prospective applicant to agree a timescale that is longer or shorter than the standard period, and to do so before the application is submitted. If the application is to be fast tracked, the authority will then be able to charge the appropriate fee.

Section 21(7) amends the powers on fees regulations, to allow a surcharge to be imposed over and above the normal fee, where a planning application is made after the development has been carried out. Retrospective applications create a lot of frustration when people are thought to be flouting the planning system; there has been substantial support for charging higher fees in such situations.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that there should be some restriction on how—or the circumstances in which—the power can be exercised. We agree that, in the circumstances that we are talking about, a limit would be appropriate. Amendment 266 therefore provides that the surcharge cannot be more than the standard fee for the application. In other words, the retrospective charge cannot be more than twice the normal fee. Our consultation on fees will consider what the level should be, within that limit.

The bill provides for the Scottish ministers to charge fees for their own planning activities. It also allows for provision to be made in the fees regulations to enable planning authorities to waive or reduce a fee. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for pointing out a discrepancy in that regard, in that the ability to waive or reduce fees does not apply to the Scottish ministers. Amendments 264 and 265 will correct that oversight.

Amendment 332, in the name of John Finnie, would make provision to charge fees for monitoring compliance of planning conditions. The Scottish ministers already have the power to set such fees in regulations, under section 252(1)(b) of the 1997 act. Indeed, they have exercised that power: the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Monitoring Surface Coal Mining Sites) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 provide for fees to be charged for site visits to monitor whether planning controls are being complied with. Therefore, I do not support amendment 332, because it is unnecessary.

Amendment 321, in the name of Monica Lennon, suggests that regulations might provide for fees to be waived where a development will contribute to a social enterprise or non-profit organisation, or is likely to contribute to improving the health of residents in the area to which the application relates. I would be happy to consider both issues in the consultation; we will need to look carefully at the definitions. I would prefer to leave the options completely open until we have the consultation, so I do not support amendment 321.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 16 would restrict ministers’ powers to set out circumstances in which a planning fee could be refunded for unreasonable delay. It would require ministers, if they used those powers, to provide that the fee must be fully refunded if an application remained undecided after 26 weeks.

The Scottish Government has maintained over many years that any increase in planning fees must be linked to improved performance. However, Mr Simpson’s approach is not the way to go about that. When we consulted on the option in 2010, less than a fifth of the respondents supported the proposal.

11:00

Recent research has shown that there are many reasons for delays in deciding applications, not all of which are within an authority’s control. In a large number of cases, the main reason for delay was the need to wait for additional reports or information from the applicant. I do not think that the introduction of refunds as a matter of course would resolve those issues and lead to the improvement in timescales that Mr Simpson might suppose. It certainly would not address the problem of underresourcing that planning authorities face, because authorities would process an application without any payment. I am happy to include in the forthcoming consultation on fees the question of when refunds might be appropriate, but I do not believe that such a blanket approach is helpful.

I ask the committee to support the amendments in my name in this group and not to support the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 259.

The Convener

Thank you. John Finnie will speak to amendment 332 and the other amendments in the group.

John Finnie

I will restrict my comments to my amendment 332, which would introduce fees for monitoring complex developments. I hear what the minister has said—my notes include a reference to surface coal mining. The amendment would extend to other development types because monitoring complex developments is essential to ensure their compliance not simply with planning conditions but with regard to mitigation, restoration and aftercare plans. There might be significant repercussions if such schemes are not monitored appropriately. The proposals would allow for cost recovery for planning authorities’ monitoring input and would accord with the polluter pays principle, which is important.

Monica Lennon

As the minister said, amendment 321 in my name would waive fees and charges for developments that have the main purpose of contributing to a not-for-profit enterprise or improving the health of residents in the area to which the development relates. Recent experiences of charities in my Central Scotland region include a case in which a rape crisis centre had to pay the planning fee for a planning application for the change of use of premises. There is a six-month waiting list for people to access the centre’s services for rape survivors; the Government has stepped in with additional money, but there are still waiting times. We could do something about such services having to find money for planning applications.

On social enterprises, we have talked a lot about bad neighbour developments; I am thinking about good neighbour developments that would help to rescue our town centres and have positive impacts on public health, such as tackling social isolation and loneliness. The planning fees can often be a barrier for such organisations and start-up businesses. That is the rationale for amendment 321.

I hear what the minister said, but I will move amendment 321 and I hope that committee members will support it.

Graham Simpson

The Convener

I call the minister to wind up.

Kevin Stewart

I am glad that the amendments that I lodged seem to be relatively uncontroversial. I am pleased that Mr Simpson indicated that he will not move amendment 16, because I think that it is too prescriptive. If it were agreed to, if I was a developer, the ideal timescale for my planning application to be approved would be 27 weeks.

I ask Ms Lennon to consider not moving her amendment 321. We can deal with all those issues in the round in a oner in the consultation—that is the best place to do it.

Monica Lennon

What is the timescale for the consultation? When will it end?

Kevin Stewart

We have to pass the bill first; I am unable to give you the consultation timescale until we deal with the bill.

Monica Lennon

Apologies—I thought that the minister was talking about an additional consultation that might be running in parallel. I would be concerned about waiting that long.

Amendment 259 agreed to.

Amendments 260 and 261 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

After section 16

The Convener

Amendment 15, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 144, 22 and 142.

Graham Simpson

I have lodged amendment 15 because it is imperative that limitations are placed on the powers of the Scottish ministers. Ministers should not have an uninhibited ability to override and undermine local democracy by calling in any application. We also do not want to see ministers’ authority undermined through their being open to allegations of being influenced by third parties. Ministers should not have carte blanche to call in any application; there must be checks on their power.

Under amendment 15, ministers could call in only national developments. However, on reflection, what I have proposed is too strong. It would have prevented, for example, the call-in of the Coul Links application, and I think it right that the minister was able to call in that application. Therefore, I will not move amendment 15 and I will come back to the issue at stage 3. However, I support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 22, which would allow ministers to make regulations on call-ins.

The Convener

I ask you to move amendment 15, because that is the process.

Graham Simpson

But I do not intend to move it.

The Convener

You need to move the amendment, but you can then not press it.

Graham Simpson

Claudia Beamish’s amendment 142 says that ministers “must” review applications when

“the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has objected on the grounds of concerns in relation to flood risk.”

That possibly goes too far. We must trust councils, so the more proportionate word “may” could be better.

Monica Lennon’s amendment 144 would help to prevent the Scottish Government from intervening in a planning application before a decision had been made, so ministers could not sweep in too early and have an impact on the decision about an application. I will support that amendment.

I move amendment 15.

Monica Lennon

I accept that it is essential in some situations for ministers to have the power to call in applications and I would not support plans to remove that power completely. However, to pick up where Graham Simpson left off, there must be a balance. When a planning application comes before a planning authority, there should be a reasonable period for the planning authority to do its normal business of public consultation and for the neighbour notification period to take effect.

I will clarify what Graham Simpson said. Amendment 144 is not about the planning authority having to make a decision before ministers can intervene; it is about protecting the prescribed period. Under regulations, planning authorities must make a determination within a certain time, although that does not mean that the decision will be taken.

I have kept in mind what happened in Cockenzie, when the application was called in very prematurely—about three or four weeks after it was lodged. Such an approach gets in the way of local accountability and the local planning authority’s democratic right to scrutinise applications properly. It is only fair for local authorities to be guaranteed the maximum time that is set out in legislation for them to consider and scrutinise decisions properly.

Mark Ruskell

Ministerial powers to issue a direction to call in an application for determination are important, and we can support them. However, if those powers are used without transparency, they can undermine faith and certainty in the planning system and undermine confidence in ministers’ role in it.

Amendment 22 would not remove or restrict call-in powers; it would merely allow the Government to clarify by regulations the circumstances in which the powers can be used. The amendment would allow Parliament to scrutinise those regulations under the affirmative procedure.

Claudia Beamish

I do not intend to move amendment 142. In relation to my amendment 140, we had a robust and useful discussion of flood risk. There are ways of taking forward the issues. As amendment 142 is consequential, I will say no more about it.

Kevin Stewart

The Scottish ministers’ discretion to call in any planning application from a planning authority for their own determination is a well-established and important aspect of our planning system. Over the decades, successive Governments have exercised the discretion to call in a wide range of applications across Scotland.

The Government recognises that planning is primarily a matter for local authorities and values their key role in the system. In 2009, we announced a more proportionate approach to ministerial intervention in planning cases. We greatly reduced the circumstances in which planning authorities had to notify applications to ministers for consideration of call-in, and we made it clear that we would exercise our right to call in applications very sparingly and only when matters of genuine national interest were involved.

That approach has been borne out by our actions. The number of applications that are notified to ministers has dropped from around 200 each year before 2009 to an average of 24 now, and the number of planning applications that are called in has dropped from around 25 to 30 annually to just three to five each year. For a bit of context, I point out that more than 35,000 applications were decided across Scotland last year.

11:15

Andy Wightman

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

Yes.

Andy Wightman

Although I personally believe that those moves by the current Administration are welcome, the issue is about what the law says on the level of discretion. There is nothing to prevent a future Administration from operating its discretion far more liberally than the current Administration does. It is about providing greater clarity and certainty and, to a degree, fettering ministers’ discretion to use the power.

Kevin Stewart

I will come on to talk about discretion and some of the points about the law, because the issues are not as easy as members might think.

I respect the role that our planning authorities play, but circumstances can occasionally arise in which it is more appropriate to further scrutinise and decide on an application at the national level. I am regularly asked by members of the Parliament, including members of the committee and members who are visiting it today, to call in applications all over Scotland. Sometimes, it is appropriate for me to do so, but in many cases people have been disappointed when I have chosen not to call in applications. I do not intervene when I consider it appropriate for the planning authority to make the decision.

To give a current example, which Mr Simpson touched on, I recently called in a planning application to the Highland Council for a new golf course at Coul, near Embo. It is a live case and I will have to make the final decision, so obviously I will not make any comments about the merits of the case. However, I received requests to call in that application from 14 MSPs from across the parties, one MP and bodies including RSPB Scotland, the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Marine Conservation Society. We also received a great number of letters of concern and some of support from the public. Ultimately, I considered that it was appropriate to call in the application for a decision at national level because the proposal raises issues of national importance in relation to natural heritage and compliance with Scottish planning policy.

I am glad that Graham Simpson intends to seek leave to withdraw amendment 15 because, if it was agreed to, I would not be able to call in applications in similar situations in the future, as the proposal is not a national development within the national planning framework. It is not only national developments that can raise issues of national importance. Even small developments can have a significant impact on our natural and historic environments and on important infrastructure, to give just a few examples. There are circumstances in which planning decisions ought to be made nationally, and many people would not want that power of additional scrutiny to be lost.

Amendment 22, which was lodged by Mark Ruskell, recognises that there are circumstances in which planning decisions ought to be made nationally and that therefore ministerial call-in can sometimes be appropriate. I welcome that. I also understand the sentiment behind the amendment, which is to bring more certainty around how and when the call-in power is exercised. However, we cannot reasonably set out in legislation an exhaustive set of circumstances in which applications may or may not be subject to call-in. Although amendment 22 would not remove Scottish ministers’ discretion entirely, it could raise expectations and become unduly restrictive.

Earlier this year, I issued a notification direction for an application for a proposed residential development on a site next to Edinburgh zoo. My decision to intervene was in the light of possible negative health impacts for the giant pandas, as advised in representations by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. The issues that were raised are of national and, arguably, international importance, but it seems unlikely that any regulations would have covered conditions in which we are required to take cognisance of panda love and romance. That shows the value of having a responsive approach.

However, I recognise that it might be helpful to bring more clarity to the Government’s call-in approach. I am prepared to look again at our guidance, to seek to bring greater clarity to our approach when considering call-in. For those reasons and with that commitment, I ask Mark Ruskell not to move amendment 22.

Amendment 144, in the name of Monica Lennon, would prevent a call-in direction from being issued until after the period prescribed for the planning authority to issue a decision notice had expired. However, once a decision notice has been issued and there is no live application to determine, the Scottish ministers cannot call in the case, unless the applicant seeks a local review of the decision.

Monica Lennon

I have taken some advice from the Parliament clerks on that, because other members asked me the same question. Amendment 144 is not designed to require the planning authority to have made the decision—I get the minister’s point about the Scottish ministers not being able to call something in at that point. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the two-month period to pass. In the example that I gave of Cockenzie, the call-in direction came early in the process.

Going back to my earlier remarks, it is right that there is a call-in process and that there are checks and balances. The approach has to be proportionate. In the example that the minister gave of Coul Links, the local process was able to run its course and we were able to say that it was a case of national and international significance. We could see the bodies of evidence and representation, and it is very healthy that many members made representations. It is about trying not to bypass local democracy. I wanted to make that point clear to the minister.

Perhaps I can squeeze in a question. I wonder about the three to five call-in cases that you look at each year, minister. Do you routinely visit those sites as part of your assessment?

Kevin Stewart

We again have a situation in which a member is trying to say that their amendment would not do a certain thing, when—quite categorically—it would. This is about the unintended consequences of certain amendments that have been lodged.

I have spoken to a number of members about their amendments, which has led to better drafting, even though I do not necessarily agree with the amendments. Ms Lennon has had the opportunity to come and speak to me about a number of amendments. A meeting was arranged, but it was cancelled by Ms Lennon.

I say again to members that I am more than willing to speak to anybody about their amendments, and I am willing for my officials to do the same. However, I cannot sit here in a situation in which a member lodges an amendment and says that the amendment is designed not to do something that it quite clearly would do.

Annabelle Ewing

As someone who has been on both sides of the table, I would like the minister to clarify why he takes the view that he does, because I hear muttering about the advice that people have been given. I presume that his interpretation of the unintended consequences of Monica Lennon’s amendment 144 is based on the advice that he has received from officials.

Kevin Stewart

As folk might well imagine, I have a number of officials working on the bill, including lawyers and solicitors, who look at all the amendments and the consequences of them. I have been quite open in giving the committee purpose-and-effect documents, to show the purpose and effect of our amendments, but I cannot do that for the amendments of other folk.

John Finnie

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

I will take Mr Finnie’s intervention once I have finished the point that I am making.

As I said, I am more than happy to arrange for members to meet me or officials to talk about the purpose and effect of their amendments, and a number of members have taken advantage of that offer. With some amendments—we have considered one such amendment today, from Mr Balfour—the work that has been done has led to an amendment that is much better for all concerned, including the folk out there who are interested in the issue.

John Finnie

I am grateful to the minister for taking my intervention. On other committees, I have appreciated the Scottish Government sharing its purpose-and-effect notes. However, does the minister accept that some things are a matter of opinion? Everyone here is acting in good faith. We have all proposed changes that have been certified as competent, but what sometimes does not come out in discussions is the effect of not doing something.

Kevin Stewart

To an extent, I agree with Mr Finnie on that point. Such discussions could take place. I welcome members coming to speak to me about the bill. A number of members have had numerous meetings with me, while a number of members have chosen not to meet me—that is their prerogative—but have spoken to officials. I am happy about that because, no matter what, I want us to produce the best piece of legislation that is possible. Mr Finnie is right to say that there are often different opinions, but I must look at the legal advice that I receive extremely carefully, as he will well understand.

Once a decision notice has been issued and there is no live application to determine, the Scottish ministers cannot call in the case, unless the applicant seeks a local review of the decision. In the normal course of events, we would consider issuing a call-in direction only if the planning authority had processed an application and was intending to grant permission, and that triggered a requirement to notify ministers of the authority’s intention. There are general notification directions that apply to cases in which, for example, an agency or neighbouring planning authority has advised against the granting of planning permission, or to planning authority interest cases that are contrary to the development plan.

It is extremely rare for ministers to intervene early in the planning process, but there have been, and there might again be, instances in which early intervention by ministers is considered necessary in the national interest—for example, to make sure that a decision is made before other deadlines expire. That was the case in Cockenzie. It would not be helpful to lose that ability.

I apologise, convener.

The Convener

Thank you, minister.

Graham Simpson

I am not sure why the minister felt the need to make that intervention. He just repeated himself, and given that I said that I am not going to press amendment 15, it was slightly unnecessary.

When I say it is finished, it is finished. Thank you.

Graham Simpson

I will not press amendment 15.

Amendment 15, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 144 moved—[Monica Lennon].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 144 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Abstentions

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 3, Abstentions 1. The convener’s casting vote means that the amendment falls.

Amendment 144 disagreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendment 142 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 164, in the name of John Finnie, is in a group on its own.

John Finnie

First, I would like to thank the minister for the offer of talks on this particular issue. Unfortunately, diary clashes meant that those did not take place but, as with other amendments, I would be keen to continue discussions.

This is my second session in Parliament. In the previous session, I was on the Equal Opportunities Committee, which produced two strongly worded reports on a cross-party consensual basis. The reports were about the conditions that the Gypsy Traveller community have to put up with in relation to accommodation and health conditions.

I do not doubt people’s commitment to address this issue and people have worked on it since then, including the former cabinet secretary Angela Constance. The minister himself has been involved in various aspects.

My amendment 164 covers permitted development. We could argue that we have already agreed to an amendment on that issue today: Mr Balfour’s amendment 323. Importantly, under my amendment 164, development would only be considered where it is

“in accordance with the development plan”.

There are some fairly recent examples of changes to permitted development rights, which have covered alterations to shops, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and office buildings; off-street recharging of electric vehicles; disabled access ramps; and private ways, commonly known as tracks or hill tracks, which I know the committee will go on to discuss.

We have to ask what has come of those Equal Opportunities Committee reports and to what extent they relate to this legislation. It is my belief that there is a willingness, both centrally and locally, to do things. However, there is a tension between central direction and local autonomy, which we have heard about in relation to a number of other amendments.

There is no doubt that sites struggle to gain planning permission. That is often down to local pressure and it is fuelled by prejudice. I welcomed the recent debate on a change in language and the move away from viewing such sites as housing to viewing them as accommodation. In fairly recent weeks, I have dealt with a situation where people were shut out of their accommodation, which took the form of a centuries-old location. Travellers were unable to get in because a farmer had dug a trench around the site. I stress that that particular group of Travellers have been using that site for centuries. The language of the day, of course, is that that would be an unauthorised encampment. It begs the question how authorised provision is afforded.

As I said, I acknowledge all the efforts and if I sound a bit frustrated, it is because I am extremely frustrated at dealing with this issue and the disregard that there is for the Gypsy Traveller community. Barely a week goes past that there are not examples of it. There was one fairly recently in this very city.

Amendment 164 may seem to be a very blunt instrument—I make no apology for that.

I move amendment 164.

Kevin Stewart

I applaud Mr Finnie—as members know, he has been active on the issue of rights for the Gypsy Traveller community. He raises an important issue around the accommodation needs of the Gypsy Traveller community.

As I have explained to the committee previously, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that Gypsy Travellers are properly involved in planning the future of their places. The quality of our places matters to all of us and planning has a responsibility to ensure that the needs of all our communities are understood and met. To do that, we are determined to break down any barriers that prevent people from getting involved in shaping the future of their places.

The committee accepted amendments to part 1 that will ensure that community voices are heard when a planning authority is preparing its local development plan.

Although I am entirely supportive of Mr Finnie’s motive and intentions, I am unable to support his approach. Amendment 164 would work against a key principle of our planning system: that decisions are made by planning authorities, in accordance with the current development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Planning plays a vital role in ensuring that Gypsy Travellers have safe and secure places to stop or settle. Currently, Scottish planning policy requires councils to plan for the current and future needs of the Gypsy Traveller community and involve the community in planning and decision making that affects them. The policy states that development plans and local housing strategies should address any need identified through the housing needs and demand assessment, including those of Gypsy Travellers.

We refreshed the housing need and demand assessment guidance in October. The most significant change to the refreshed guidance is the inclusion of an enhanced requirement for local authorities to consult stakeholders in relation to specialist provision of accommodation and housing for all groups with protected characteristics, including the Gypsy Traveller community.

Local development plans should make appropriate provision for Gypsy Traveller sites, and where an application is in line with that plan, it should usually be agreed. However, planning authorities must have the flexibility to make sure that the detailed proposals for the site are suitable—listening to the people involved—and to refuse the application if they are not. Otherwise, we could end up with sites that do not meet the needs of the community and end up not being used, which would not help anyone.

Earlier this year, the Government put together a 10-point action plan on Gypsy Travellers and planning and we are making progress to deliver it. I would be happy to provide the committee with a copy of that plan, if it is of interest. As part of that process, we commissioned research to find out more about how the planning system currently addresses the need and demand for Gypsy Traveller sites. The results of the research will inform the preparation of the next national planning framework. We are also actively drawing the attention of heads of planning and planning committee conveners to the issue.

I want to make sure that the Gypsy Traveller community has a stronger voice in guiding the future development of their places and that appropriate provision is made for them. However, we should not do so by using an approach that bypasses local decision making. I am more than happy to have further discussions with Mr Finnie. I ask him to seek to withdraw amendment 164.

John Finnie

I thank the minister for his remarks. He suggests that we have “further” discussions because we had a very brief discussion as we passed in the corridor.

Let us analyse some of the things that the minister has just said. He talked about the housing strategy, which is a very important document—except that Gypsy Travellers do not consider “housing” to be an appropriate term for them. The housing needs assessment is very important and the minister went on to say how we address the needs and demands. However, I can think of a local authority that, following some vandalism on a site and without consulting anyone, decided that there was no need.

I asked the local authority how it assessed the demand, but I ask the minister, how do you assess the demand across authorities? We are dealing with a population that, by its very nature, travels, so it is not an issue for one authority.

11:45

I apologise to people who have heard me on a rant about this previously. My particular frustration is not with the local authorities that provide sites, but there is a whole load of authorities that have their heads down and want nothing to do with this. The idea that we leave the matter to local flexibility means inertia. In relation to planning for current and future needs, I want to ask what has happened. Nothing has happened—absolutely zero.

Does any part of the bill reinstate a traditional site? I was over in Skye, where people have relocated from one lay-by to another. People know that, as a result of the so-called new age travellers—many of whom are comedians now back working as merchant bankers in the City of London—lots of areas were cut off and traditional stopping sites were dug up. I have repeatedly raised this matter and I have been told nonsense, such as the claim that there are health and safety issues. There are no health and safety issues at all. People make decisions on their own merits, and the individuals who dug a trench and put boulders in place can get the JCB back, fill in the trench and remove the boulders.

It requires action by Government. Everyone is well meaning. I do not doubt for one second the will of the minister and his colleagues to address the situation, and of course, as a Green, I absolutely value local decision making, but unless someone is going to grasp the issue there will be no decision making, because we know that the local paper will protest and local members will follow the views of the community. There are considerable difficulties, and the problems in the minister’s own part of the world have been well documented.

If the minister can explain to me how the strategy has helped in the past five years, or how even the terminology of the housing needs analysis—

Kevin Stewart

If Mr Finnie will let me intervene, I will respond. I have already spelled out some of the actions that we have taken and are going to take. I do not want to go into great depth about that today, but I am more than willing to have an in-depth conversation with Mr Finnie about how we move forward on this and other issues. Mr Finnie knows that I have shared his frustration about some of the issues for quite some time, particularly when I was a local authority member. I will work with Mr Finnie to try and ensure that we can better the lives of Gypsy Travellers and involve them more in the process, but I have to reiterate that I do not think that the way to do it is by bypassing local decision making. I am more than willing to talk further with Mr Finnie.

John Finnie

I thank the minister for that intervention and I will say again, for the avoidance of any doubt, that I do not doubt his personal commitment to the issue. We will make the diaries work and add it to the agenda, and I will not press the amendment at this stage.

Amendment 164, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Convener

Amendment 165, in the name of Andy Wightman, is in a group on its own.

Andy Wightman

Amendment 165 deals with a long-running issue in planning—that of private ways, which are essentially tracks built on land for private purposes, especially at high altitudes in the hills, with a lack of effective planning control. Tracks constructed for the purposes of agriculture and forestry do not currently require full planning consent; they are permitted development. Tracks built for the purpose of field sports and shooting are, in theory, required to be subject to full planning consent, but all too often, for reasons that I will explain shortly, that does not happen.

In 2013, Scottish Environment LINK published a major report, “Track Changes”, which highlighted the widespread damage being done across Scotland’s hills by poorly constructed tracks. Despite widespread support for such development to be brought under full planning control at that time and, as I understand it, despite clear advice from officials to Scottish ministers, the then minister with responsibility for planning, Derek Mackay, instead introduced a system of prior notification as part of the continuing regime of permitted development rights.

Last month, Scottish Environment LINK published a follow-up, report, “Changing Tracks”, which I understand is in the possession of members of the committee and of the minister and his officials. It evaluates the experience since 2014. “Changing Tracks” concludes that the system is confusing, lacks democratic oversight and effective public engagement and continues to allow damaging development. I commend Scottish Environment LINK and the author of its excellent report, Melanie Nicoll, for all their hard work.

I mention two reasons why the theoretical requirement for full consent for tracks that are used for the purpose of field sports is failing. First, it is not universally agreed that field sports are a purpose that is distinct from agriculture. The legislation that created permitted development rights did not adequately define agriculture and forestry. Secondly—and this is the important reason—in numerous instances, applicants have claimed that a track is for agricultural purposes when it is, in fact, for grouse shooting or deer stalking. They make that argument on the basis that there might be a few sheep grazing on the hill. It is virtually impossible for planning authorities to challenge or disprove such claims; if they attempt to, they are likely to end up in the Court of Session.

I have another important point to make about amendment 165. The first part of the amendment merely restates the current law as it is supposed to operate. Ideally, I would have lodged an amendment that would remove permitted development rights for agriculture and forestry as well. I have chosen not to for proportionality reasons. The major impacts are in areas that are used for shootings, where tracks have been built that are often claimed to be for agriculture. The major impacts are not from farming or forestry, albeit that I believe that tracks used for farming and forestry purposes should come under full planning consent. However, that is not the purpose of the amendment.

The second part of amendment 165 is a new provision. It would extend the current regime, whereby full planning consent for private ways in national scenic areas are required, to cover national parks, designations under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and battlefields.

The Cairngorms National Park Authority’s latest park plan, which was signed off by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham, contains a presumption against new constructed tracks in open moorland. The problem is that the authority can only implement that presumption in the 25 per cent of the national park area that is a national scenic area, where full planning consent is required. Over the remaining 75 per cent of the park, applications for such tracks are permitted development, subject to a prior notification regime that was introduced in 2014. Over that 75 per cent, the principle of tracks has already been conceded through the prior permitted development regime and effectively granted; they qualify for permitted development rights, notwithstanding that prior approval can assist in modifying some elements of design or routing.

My amendment 165 would do two things. First, it would require tracks on land used for shooting and field sports—not tracks that are used for that purpose, because that has been the reason for the loophole—to be subject to full planning consent. As I have said, technically that is already the case but the existing regime has been widely flouted by claims that the tracks are for agricultural purposes merely because of a few sheep on the hill, which are there not for agricultural purposes but to mop up ticks in order to try to boost grouse populations. I am not singling out or, in the words of the Scottish Land & Estates briefing, “demonising” a vital industry; I am focusing on the circumstances in which most issues and problems occur. If members are concerned that I am picking on shooting and field sports, I would be happy not to do so and to come back with an amendment that includes agriculture and forestry and treats everyone equally.

Annabelle Ewing

I hear what Andy Wightman has said, but does he want to impinge on the activities of agriculture and forestry? I would have thought that they are good things.

Andy Wightman

I have not said anything to suggest that they not good things. Of course they are good things; lots of things are good. The planning system is there to make sure that developments have proper regard to local development plans, the environment and all the rest of it. Many agriculture and forestry tracks do not have proper regard to those things, but I am leaving them out at the moment for proportionality reasons.

The second thing that the amendment does is that it extends the current provisions that require full planning consent for any private way in a national scenic area to national parks, designations under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and battlefields. Such an extension to national parks and other protected landscapes was recommended in a Government-commissioned review in 2007. My amendment does not even go as far as the review recommended, because, as I have indicated, it leaves the PDR regime for agriculture and forestry untouched.

It is totally unacceptable for ordinary householders to be required to secure full planning consent for many quite modest developments while miles and miles of poorly constructed roads, particularly in Scotland’s national parks, can be built with no equivalent level of scrutiny and public consultation.

If amendment 165 is not agreed to, damage will continue to be done to our natural heritage through the inability of planning authorities to effectively regulate the construction of hill tracks. Nothing in my amendment seeks to ban hill tracks; it merely extends to those tracks the routine procedures that planning authorities already have in place and which govern a wide range of other developments.

I move amendment 165.

Graham Simpson

Like most—indeed, probably all—committee members, I really value the countryside. I have met Ramblers Scotland and read the “Changing Tracks” report, which, I have to say, makes a compelling case for better regulation. However, the current system has been in place only since December 2014, and it seems a little early to be changing the legislation in this area.

My problem with Andy Wightman’s amendment 165 is that it singles out

“land which is ... used for shooting or ... field sports”.

Very briefly.

Andy Wightman

That is exactly the position that I have set out. However, does the minister agree that, with regard to a planning authority’s refusal of such a planning application on the basis that it believes that the purpose of the track is for field sports, it is very difficult to make that case when the track might be used by, say, a mountain rescue team one day or by a shepherd going to dose some sheep with insecticide the next? It is virtually impossible for planning authorities to make that case and use the law as intended.

12:00

Kevin Stewart

Again, the question is: what will be the outcome of a particular amendment? There is debate in that respect.

I want to turn to the key issue with regard to permitted development rights, which are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, as amended over the years. The order is commonly referred to as the GPDO, and I, too, will refer to it as such from here on in.

Such rights are partly intended to strike a balance between the need for businesses to have some certainty about carrying out development that is required for the operation of their business and other factors such as the impact on the environment, local amenity and so on. I understand that there are concerns around the creation of private ways and their potential for negative impacts on visual amenity and the environment, and the Government sought to address those concerns in 2014 when we introduced a requirement for any agricultural and forestry private way to be notified to planning authorities and the design, layout and method of construction to be agreed by them.

However, we must also consider the needs of farmers and foresters, who must have access to their land for their regular operations, which include planting, harvesting and reaching remote grazing areas. The national parks, national scenic areas and SSSIs that cover something like 20 per cent of Scotland are not empty landscapes, and removing permitted development rights from all of that land would impact on significant numbers of businesses.

For that reason, I believe that the place for considering the amending of permitted development rights is through the GPDO after a proper consultation that gives all parties the chance to have their views heard. The Scottish Government is committed to carrying out a review of the GPDO after the completion of the bill, and we will consider calls for changes to permitted development for private ways alongside other proposals for change. Any proposed changes will be subject to full public consultation.

With my assurance to Mr Simpson that we will review these matters, I call on the committee to reject amendment 165.

Andy Wightman

I welcome the minister’s restatement of the fact that permitted development rights will be reviewed, and I will certainly make representations to such a review with regard to agriculture and forestry.

However, I must point out that agriculture and forestry are not the subject of amendment 165, which relates to tracks that are built for field sports and shooting. Those applicants are widely flouting the current legislative regime and the intention behind it; essentially, they are lying to planning authorities by saying that the tracks are for agricultural purposes.

One very good example that caused a lot of controversy two or three years ago was on the Ledgowan estate near Achnasheen in Wester Ross. The applicant said that the proposal was for agricultural purposes, and Highland Council accepted that—the council was in no position to be able to refute it, because agricultural activities were taking place on the estate. The evidence, however, that that was a masquerade emerged a couple of years later when the estate—and a very ugly and unsightly track that had been built on it—came on to the market. In an attempt to get more money, the sales particulars say:

“Accessibility to the majority of the hill ground has been transformed by the construction of a network of hill roads. This significantly expands the scope of the stalking to ... those of all levels of physical fitness”.

That is absolutely typical of the circumstances in which these tracks are being built all over Scotland. I simply remind the minister that the intention behind amendment 165 is to restate the current law, which, as he has pointed out, requires full planning consent, in a more effective way to deliver the policy intent.

Kevin Stewart

I understand what Mr Wightman is trying to do with regard to restating the current law, but his amendment is not worded in that way. This is the difficulty with it. Amendment 165 refers to development that

“consists of the formation or alteration of a private way on land which is ... used for shooting or other field sports”.

Land can be used for a number of different things, including agriculture and forestry as well as shooting and field sports. That is the problem with the amendment: the member is not restating the current situation—he is going beyond it. The wording of the amendment is not right, which causes difficulty.

I am willing to look all the issues in a review of general permitted development rights. However, once again, we have an amendment that would have unintended consequences.

Andy Wightman

I accept what the minister says. It is impossible to restate the law exactly as it is—otherwise, there would be no point in an amendment. Amendment 165 changes the focus from the purpose of a track to the land on which the track is constructed. I accept that, as in the case that I just cited, there are different uses going on. The amendment would act as a filter: for the avoidance of doubt, where shooting or field sports are taking place—we can modify the language a bit—that would require full planning consent. That would overcome the issue with the current regime, which provides that tracks are required to have planning consent and is being widely flouted.

I have nothing more to add; I have made the arguments for the amendment and I ask members to support it.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 165 disagreed to.

Kevin Stewart

Can we have two minutes before we move on to the next group?

The Convener

This will be the last group. Is that okay?

Kevin Stewart

That is fine.

The Convener

Amendment 316, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is in a group on its own.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)

Good afternoon, colleagues. I hope that this will not take too long. One of the first major pieces of legislation that I had to deal with when I was first elected was the previous planning bill—the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. It was so much fun that I could not resist the temptation to come back today with one small, modest amendment. It is smaller in scope than the amendments on some of the much bigger issues that the committee has discussed today, but when communities are threatened with the potential loss of a pub that is an important social space in their community, that is a big issue for them.

I draw to members’ attention the fact that I am a member of the Campaign for Real Ale—CAMRA—and of the cross-party group on beer and pubs, for which CAMRA is the secretariat. I mention that because CAMRA has been involved in advising me about the drafting of amendment 316.

Amendment 316 is designed to close a loophole that has already been addressed south of the border and could be addressed in Scotland, too. Although the change of use of a pub requires planning permission, in many cases the demolition of a pub does not. That has been used as a loophole to allow pubs to become sites that are used for other purposes, such as housing, without the initial opportunity for the community to say what it thinks of that proposal and to make the case that the pub should continue to be a pub.

This is less of an issue in the urban environment, where demolition is much less likely to be the course of action that is taken. Even in cases where a big-chain pub moves out, such premises are more likely to be reused either as another pub business or as a different kind of business. However, it can be a problem in smaller communities in particular, especially where the pub acts as an important social hub.

What are the potential outcomes? In the best-case scenario, where such action is proposed, the requirement for planning permission would allow the community the time in which to make representations about what it thinks should happen—or potentially even the time to raise the social capital to make a bid to take community ownership of the pub. When it comes to licensing laws, community-owned pubs are run very responsibly. They tend to be very good employers and they tend to be innovative about working with different services and other businesses in the community to create a genuinely social space, rather than just looking to extract maximum profits. They tend not to need to be as profitable in order to be viable, because they have the support of the community around them.

That would be the best-case scenario. It is unlikely to happen in every situation, but we should provide the maximum opportunity for it to happen. The requirement for planning consent would provide an extra opportunity for the community to have its say.

What is the worst-case scenario? It is a community losing its only pub, without the ability to intervene and to say what it thinks about that, and many more people simply drinking at home. It means not only the loss of that social space but people having less healthy drinking habits.

I hope that the minister, like the UK Government, is willing to close this loophole. If he wishes to approach the issue in a different way from the one that is taken in my amendment, I will be very open to that, but I am grateful to have had the opportunity to flag up this issue and hope that, regardless of the views on the amendment’s specific text, there is some agreement around the intention behind my proposal.

I move amendment 316.

Monica Lennon

I thank Patrick Harvie for his interest in the bill. I am sympathetic to what he has said about the role of community-owned pubs in bringing people together because, as we know, drinking at home is becoming a bigger problem. However, I am not sure that the approach that he has proposed is necessary, and I am concerned that the amendment has been drawn too widely in covering not only pubs but wine bars and other drinking establishments. That could cover practically anything with an alcohol licence, so it would bring in halls and other types of building. Despite Mr Harvie’s eloquence in his statements, I am not convinced by his arguments, and I do not think that I am able to support his amendment.

Graham Simpson

Speaking as another member of the cross-party group on beer and pubs, I fully get where Patrick Harvie is coming from, but I agree with Monica Lennon that the amendment has been drafted too widely and will not protect the kind of establishment—the community local—that he wants to protect. The amendment also covers wine bars and other drinking establishments—in other words, anywhere with an alcohol licence—and I just think that that goes too far. I urge Mr Harvie to have a rethink before stage 3, but I will not be supporting his amendment at this point.

Kevin Stewart

It is fair to say that I like a good local pub myself but, as with the previous group, I cannot support amendment 316. The issue should be brought forward in our review of the general permitted development order and be subject to full public consultation.

We want a thriving pub sector, because we recognise that a pub can be the focal point of a community. Pubs provide good employment opportunities, create economic activity and are integral to the tourism sector and our night-time economy. I understand the concern that, in some places, a pub closure might mean the loss of a very important amenity, but that is an issue about businesses closing. That might happen for a variety of reasons, and preventing the demolition of a pub under permitted development rights will not in itself do anything to allow a venue to keep thriving.

Amendment 316 would apply to buildings whose last lawful use was as a pub, even if the business had ceased trading some time previously. In some cases, demolition might be necessary if the building has become derelict, although it is worth mentioning that the permitted development rights for demolition do not apply where a building has been allowed to become uninhabitable or unsafe through neglect or deliberate action, if it is practicable to make it safe. The material redevelopment, or change of use, of a pub’s location would still require an application for planning permission.

Furthermore, I have referred to pubs throughout my comments. Because there is no definition of “drinking establishment”, it is, as others have pointed out, impossible to consider the potential consequences of the amendment on any location where drink is taken, including restaurants, coffee bars—the list goes on.

I consider the amendment to be too sweeping, and I do not believe that it is the right way to support those pubs that provide a hub for the local community. I therefore ask the committee not to support it. As I have said, I think that we can deal with the issue when we review, with full public consultation, the rights under the general permitted development order.

12:15

Patrick Harvie

I do not want to take up too much time, convener. I am grateful that the minister recognises that there is an issue, and that there might be other ways of addressing it. I am happy to ask the committee’s permission to withdraw the amendment for the time being, with a view to raising the issue either at stage 3 or in some other context, and I am also happy to write to the minister about how we might move forward in that respect.

Amendment 316, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Convener

That concludes today’s stage 2 consideration of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. I thank the minister—particularly for his use of the phrase “panda love”, which is something that I never thought I would hear—his officials and all the other MSPs who attended the meeting. Day 6 of stage 2 will take place on 7 November, and any remaining amendments to the bill should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday 1 November.

I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the minister, his officials and other members to leave the table.

12:16 Meeting suspended.

12:18 On resuming—

31 October 2018

Sixth meeting on amendments

Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 7 November 2018:

Sixth Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2

Sixth Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2

Sixth meeting on amendments transcript

The Convener

This is day 6 of stage 2 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. Once again, I welcome the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, and his accompanying officials. Again, some members of the Scottish Parliament who are not members of the committee but have lodged amendments to the bill will be in attendance today, and they are very welcome. I welcome Alex Rowley.

After section 16

The Convener

Amendment 58, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendment 58A.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

Amendment 58 is connected to amendments in the next group, on appeal rights, which we will discuss shortly. The trigger for appeal rights in my amendments 59 and 60, which are in the next group, depends on the answer to the question that is posed by amendment 58—namely, whether the application is in accordance with the development plan. That is the key criterion that determines the eligibility of any determination to be appealed under the provisions of amendments 59 and 60.

Amendment 58 merely requires that, as part of the notice of a planning authority’s decision on the application, a statement be included as to whether, in the planning authority’s opinion, it is in accordance with the development plan. Critics have pointed out—and I have no doubt that the minister will point this out this morning—that that is not an easy judgment to make in many cases in Scotland’s highly discretionary planning system. That is a fair criticism in some instances and it is why amendment 58 would leave it to the authority to make the decision as it sees fit.

Section 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 stipulates that, in dealing with an application for development, the planning authority

“shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.”

Planning authorities therefore routinely make such assessments, and by obliging them to make a statement on them, we will nudge the planning system towards a less discretionary and more plan-led approach.

I support Monica Lennon’s amendment 58A.

I move amendment 58.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 58A seeks to add a point of clarification to Andy Wightman’s amendment 58. Amendment 58 would make it necessary for planning authorities to give a statement on whether an application is in accordance with the development plan. Amendment 58A makes it clear that the statement must include an explanation of why the authority has reached that view. To me, it is a simple change that will increase transparency in the system and make it clear to the public which applications are in accordance with the development plan.

We will come on to discuss appeal rights later in the meeting, but the amendments make sense if we are to make changes in the appeal system and give more weight to a plan-led approach. I will come on to my arguments on appeals but, in the hypothetical situation in which we have a system of appeals that is led by accordance with the plan, it is fair and reasonable that there should be an easy way of accessing that type of information. For example, if lots of applications come forward for housing developments on sites that are not in the plan, the amendments could provide a useful indicator or tool for planners in considering where the development plan needs to be amended.

I move amendment 58A.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

I thank Andy Wightman and Monica Lennon for the amendments. We will come on to appeals, but the two amendments do not mention appeals; they merely mention making a statement on whether an application is in accordance with the development plan. We used to have that system not so long ago and, in my view, councils did not find that a difficult decision to make—it should not be a difficult decision; it should be relatively straightforward. Agreeing to the two amendments would give people more clarity. Members of the public often struggle to understand why certain decisions have been made. By supporting the two amendments, which we will do, we will help to clear things up for people. We want a system that people can trust. By supporting the amendments, we will add to that trust, which has to be a good thing.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

Superficially, amendments 58 and 58A seem to be fairly minor and straightforward. They set out what a planning authority must state in its decision notice. However, there are two important reasons why I do not support the amendments.

First, section 37 of the 1997 act requires a planning authority to

“have regard to the provisions of the development plan ... and to any other material considerations”

when making a decision on a planning application. That is a long-standing requirement of our planning system. It is at the heart of the system. Section 25 of the act then provides that the decision on the application is to be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Every decision on every application involves the decision maker reaching a conclusion about whether and how the proposed development accords with the development plan. The decision maker has to consider that alongside an assessment of other material considerations and then decide whether those considerations, individually or collectively, outweigh the position with development plan conformity.

Authorities are already required by section 43(1A) of the 1997 act to give reasons for their decision in the decision notice. In addition, the planning authority must place a report on the register of applications setting out the provisions of the development plan and the other material considerations to which it has had regard in making its decision. Therefore, the full basis and context for a decision must already be recorded. Conformity with the development plan is only part of the picture.

Secondly, I am concerned about the way in which it has been proposed, including in the amendments that we will discuss in the next group, that appeal rights should be linked to whether the development is in accordance with the development plan. Although in some cases it will be relatively clear whether a particular proposed development is in accordance with the development plan, in many other cases that will not be the case. In those cases, the question whether a proposal accords with the development plan can involve complex and finely balanced interpretation and professional judgment, and different parties can reach different but entirely reasonable views.

Although the development plan is key in guiding and directing future development, it cannot anticipate or allocate land for every possible scenario for future development. Sometimes very reasonable proposals that have not been considered or led through the plan can come forward.

Development plans may contain broad statements of policy, some of which may lend support to a particular development, whereas others may do the opposite. In that particular case, one must give way to another.

In addition, the provisions of a development plan may be framed so that their application to particular circumstances requires the exercise of judgment by the planning authority. There may reasonably be a difference of opinion on the question, and that may be the key point on which an appeal turns. Therefore, it cannot be appropriate to use the authority’s judgment on that point as the criterion for whether its decision can be appealed.

As Ms Lennon is well aware, planning is both a science and an art, and decisions are often complex and multifactored. Planning is not a simple tick-box exercise with a pass or fail mark. I want to see good planning decisions being made thoughtfully and transparently, taking into account all the relevant issues and respecting the professional judgment of planners and the democratic remit of elected members.

I am happy to look at how we can improve transparency and help people to understand the basis on which decisions have been made. However, the amendments are based on and contribute to an oversimplified understanding of the process by focusing on just one part of the story of any application and the decision made on it. I ask the committee to reject the amendments.

Andy Wightman

The minister concluded by saying that the amendments focus on one part of the story. They absolutely do. They focus on the part of the story that is incredibly important—that is, the development plan. We are trying to pass legislation that strengthens the role of the development plan. I and, I think, some of my colleagues, would also like to see quite a big shift towards a much more plan-led system with much less discretion.

The minister correctly pointed out that decision makers make decisions about whether applications should be granted with respect to development plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise. That is absolutely correct, and the minister was absolutely correct to say that those other considerations play into the decision. There is nothing in my amendment that suggests otherwise; all that it seeks to do is place a duty on the planning authority to “include a statement” on whether its decision on an application accords with the development plan. That is one bit of the story, but it is an incredibly important bit of it. That would leave the judgment to the authority alone and, as Graham Simpson said, assist the public to understand the perfectly reasonable cases that the minister has cited in which, for a variety of reasons, a departure from the plan may be well in order. Because there is a link to appeal rights, it is precisely those circumstances in which effort has gone into making a plan and departures are made, possibly for very good reasons, that are the trigger for having a second look at the matter. We will get on to that when we consider the next group.

That is one part of the story, but it is a very important part of it. I hope that, over time, an assessment of the extent to which applications are in accordance with the plan will help the plan-led system and the process of developing development plans.

09:30

Monica Lennon

I agree with Andy Wightman. It is really simple. The issue is about the planning authority providing a statement of fact—it does not have to rehearse all the arguments around an individual application. Once the decision has been taken by the planning authority, it should provide a simple statement on whether the decision was in accordance with the development plan and if not, provide a reason for that. That commentary is usually set out somewhere in a committee report, but rather than the public having to scour through dozens of sheets of paper on planning portals, there would be a simple reference to show whether a decision was or was not in accordance with the development plan.

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 58, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 262 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 51, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendments 59, 60, 92, 143, 325 and 319.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

The minister said that the planning process is both a science and an art. The planning process must be transparent and people need to have confidence that the system will deliver. If amendments 51 and 92 are agreed to, they may need to be tidied up at stage 3, but the principle behind them is based on my first-hand experiences and those that I have been told about by many people.

There is an argument that if the planning system is front loaded and set up in a way that is transparent, communities will have the opportunity to provide input and have their say through a democratic process. That input will go to councillors—both councillors in general and those on the planning committee—and the system will then produce a local development plan that has arisen from what people wanted to say and from the input of communities. That means that we will all have had our say and we will have a development plan that sets the way forward with our communities.

In my recent experience of the Fife development plan, the ink was barely dry on the paper when developers started to put in applications for housing developments on land that was not included in the development plan. Developers and landowners had tried to get that land included initially, but during the front-loaded consultation process, communities had held local consultation meetings with the planning authority and had put forward their views; the area committees and the council had then had their say and had decided against it.

It seems as though that meant nothing because, at the end of the day, along comes a developer who makes a different argument and, even though the authority then refuses the application on the material ground that it is not within the local development plans, it can be called in by the Scottish Government reporter and can be approved. We have seen that in Inverkeithing and in Aberdour; we have seen it in many parts of Fife, and I am sure that we have seen it in many other parts of Scotland.

The argument about front loading the consultation might be correct and people might be involved in that process, but despite that the developer can come in with an application. My amendment 92 proposes that there should be

“no right of appeal for development on land that has not been allocated for development in the local development plan”.

Alternatively, under amendment 51, if the land has not been included for consideration in the development plan, equal right of appeal should apply to those who have objected and have been part of the process but who then seem to be ignored at the last stage.

That is the main argument—if we accept the principle of front loading, in which people have the opportunity to be involved and to shape the development plan for the future, surely it cannot be right that the plan can just be ignored; that when the ink is not yet dry, the developer can apply again regardless; and that the developer has the right to appeal but those who have been involved in the process have no rights. That is the principled argument upon which my amendments are based.

I move amendment 51.

Andy Wightman

As members know, there has been a long debate about whether to reform appeal rights in the Scottish planning system. Current appeal rights date from 1947—70 years ago—when applicants, who were typically landowners, were suspicious of the ability of public authorities to make decisions about development that they had hitherto made.

The right to develop one’s own property was being removed from the owner. That was the nationalisation of development rights, which was a radical and very welcome step. Because that happened, it was conceded that a right of appeal should be granted against any refusal to grant planning consent.

Today, we have a highly developed plan-led system and there is no requirement for appeals to be universally available to applicants. Equally, there is a strong argument for providing a limited right of appeal to third parties.

The debate on third-party right of appeal has moved on considerably since the debate around the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and is now focused on equalising the rights of appeal by first providing a limited right of appeal to third parties and by restricting the existing right of appeal to applicants.

In a proper plan-led system, there should be no right of appeal at all—the plan should make clear what is permitted and what is not. However, we are still in the world of discretion, material considerations and unallocated sites.

My amendments 59 and 60 mirror each other. Amendment 59 provides that where a planning authority gives notice that an application is not in accordance with the development plan under the provisions of amendment 58, which we have just debated, the existing appeal rights of applicants would be removed. In other words, there is no right of appeal on an application that violates the development plan—the instance that Alex Rowley indicated. The right of appeal remains open to applicants when a planning authority refuses consent for an application that is in accordance with the development plan.

Such a move would strengthen the plan-led system and provide greater clarity and certainty, as well as eliminating confusion and delay at the end of the process. As Malcolm Fraser told us in his evidence at stage 1:

“As an architect, I have been told many times by planners that they are going to turn something down but I will win on appeal. That is simply unacceptable. It extends the process, allows developments to become worse, allows lawyers and consultants to make money out of the tail end of the process, and holds back development.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 7 March 2018; c 61.]

Amendment 60 would introduce a similar right to third parties to appeal determinations in the circumstances set out in proposed section 47(2B) of the 1997 act, most particularly where consent is granted to an application that is not in accordance with the development plan and where a decision is made on land in which the planning authority has an interest. Such rights of appeal are open only to those who made representations on the application or a community council.

The debate has matured over recent years and, through conversations with members, I am aware that some people still frame the issue in the terms that were used 10 years ago. It is abundantly clear that the current system of appeals is undermining local democratic decision making by allowing legitimate decisions to be appealed against the wishes of local communities, whose planning authorities are upholding agreed plans. It is time to grasp that nettle.

The proposals that are outlined in amendments 59 and 60, as well as those in Monica Lennon’s amendment 143, represent a proportionate, limited and logical framework in which to modernise appeal rights.

I will not vote for Alex Rowley’s amendment 51, because it would leave open the possibility of anyone who makes representations on an application appealing the decision if, in their opinion, the decision breaches the local development plan. Leaving that up to the opinion of individuals is not appropriate and risks undermining the legitimate decision-making process of the planning authority.

I will speak briefly to amendment 325, which I will not move—it is a probing amendment. There are several undeveloped elements of the amendment, but it is complete enough to serve its purpose in exploring what might be done to planning determinations that are subsequently found to have been made by persons who have been found guilty of criminal offences in connection with the decision-making process. I welcome the minister’s comments on amendment 325.

Monica Lennon

Every time the committee has debated the Planning (Scotland) Bill, I have needed to refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests in order to stick to the Parliament’s rules. My relevant interest is that I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I started studying to be a planner more than 21 years ago, and I did not expect that I would be sitting in our national Parliament, helping to shape our planning laws. It could be said that my gravitation into politics is an unintended consequence of what attracted me to planning in the first place and what has frustrated me about the planning system.

Planning excites me—I think that it excites a lot of us—because of the possibilities that it can unlock. It is about making decisions today that will lead to better places tomorrow, for generations to come. Planning also frustrates me. Even when I was 16 and starting my planning studies, I realised that, although planning decisions affect all of us, the planning system needs to be accountable to all of us. In reality, too often planning decisions and processes satisfy powerful interests. I am sure that we can all think of examples in which that has led to planning outcomes that do not best serve the needs of people and communities. We cannot go back and change those decisions, but we can rebalance the system.

I have argued that there should be a purpose for planning in the bill, because we need to be clear that planning is about the public interest; it does not exist simply to serve the wishes of applicants or those who pay a fee. I have argued for a rights-based approach to planning, and I have talked about the importance of being serious about equality—equality impact assessments are one tool that planners can use. We also need to realise that planning has an important and unique role in improving public health. Those are important principles that planning can deliver in practice.

I appreciate that not everyone around the room has agreed with my amendments. I know that I will need to keep working on some of my proposals at stage 3.

We can go back to the Official Report from 2005—many of us have done so. Although planning has modernised, a lot of frustration remains. Front loading was supposed to be a step change and to empower communities. From the evidence that the committee has heard, very few communities have said that that has worked in practice.

I believe strongly that any regulatory system needs to have appropriate checks and balances. In planning, we have an appeals system. I do not want to abolish the appeals system—I know that some people do—but I do not accept that it is credible to keep the status quo. From the evidence that we have heard, the people who want to keep things exactly as they are, in the main, are people who make appeals and who, not always but often, benefit from the appeals system. They want the system to be left alone; they do not even want us to look at it or talk about it through the bill process.

Others, such as some planning authority staff, are nervous of change. In fact, they are nervous of any change in the bill, because they already feel underresourced, overworked and under pressure. However, in speaking to amendment 143 in my name, I emphasise that, if we are serious about planning reform, it is not credible to ignore the appeals system.

09:45

Lots of people argue that giving communities a right of appeal would lead to more conflict in the system, which I think is unfair. I thank some of the members of the public who are in the gallery and the hundreds of people who have been emailing us. Communities and people are sometimes unfairly characterised and brushed off as nimbys—“Not in my back yard” people—who are against development. I can see Kenny Gibson nodding, and I know that he has concerns about that. There are some people who think very selfishly and only about their interests, but the people who have sent us emails and those who are in the public gallery represent the diversity of people across Scotland. People have emailed today to say that they cannot come to the meeting because of childcare responsibilities, and older people and people with disabilities have not been able to get to Parliament for the early start this morning. We have also had emails from people with expertise and who have worked in the system. It is important to set out some of that background to amendment 143.

When we talk about appeals, we are often criticised for focusing on the end of the process. However, those who engaged on the issue in 2005, a lot of whom have come back to give evidence this time, were willing to give the reform a chance and to put their faith in front loading, but it has not worked. My proposals are to reform the system and to strengthen a plan-led approach. That does not involve removing the applicant right of appeal, but that right should be more limited in scope and it should be linked to the development plan. If applicants are told at an early stage that their proposals are not in the plan, particularly if it is a fairly new plan, they can take their chances and make the application but they should forfeit their right to appeal. Last week, we had a debate about repeat applications and we have heard a lot of evidence about the pressure that it puts on the system and communities when applicants keep coming back to try to wear down planners.

I have looked back at the debates in 2005, and I sympathise with the decisions that were taken, but things have shifted since then. The Scottish Government must be commended for the approach that it has taken to community empowerment, which a lot of us agree with. We have to get away from looking at communities as the third party in the planning system, which is why my amendment seeks to equalise appeals and to put things on not exactly an equal footing but more of an even footing. It is time that, in certain circumstances, we allowed communities a right of appeal. The amendment is proportionate and would not apply to every application. It is not about a form of mediation between neighbours or about very minor changes; it is about major national applications, which can have long-lasting impacts, as we have all talked about. We all want our planning system to have the best reputation and to lead to the best outcomes. If an applicant has a seriously good proposal that has merit but which might not stick completely to the development plan, they should not be frightened of a second look at that proposal.

I know that we probably do not have a majority of members in favour of the amendment, but I hope that, whatever side of the debate members are on, they will respect the evidence that we have heard from communities in all their diversity and from every part of Scotland and that we will not just close down the debate today. I hope that we can find some compromise at stage 3, because it is not credible and does not do justice to our planning system if we try to shut down the debate and do not seek to make changes to the planning appeals system.

I would like there to be an overall reduction in the number of planning appeals, because they have resource implications for planning authorities, especially when there is a long process. In an example in my community, the appeal sat with the director of planning and environmental appeals for over a year. I will not go into detail on that as it is a live issue, but the situation has been worrying the community in my area since 2013 even though what has been proposed was speculative, was not in the development plan, does not have merit and does not meet national guidelines. It is having an impact on some of the most vulnerable people—people whom we want to protect.

It is not a good use of anyone’s time, including the minister’s time, for such applications to keep coming back. It undermines the confidence that Alex Rowley kicked off by talking about. If we want to improve confidence in the planning system, we have to reform the appeals system. Thank you for your indulgence, convener. [Interruption.]

The Convener

Excuse me. This is not a football match. There should be no applause and I ask people in the public gallery to keep as quiet as they can. Thank you.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Good morning. It is nice to be back with the committee today. My amendment 319 sets out Liberal Democrat policy on appeal rights, which we arrived at over several party conferences and in discussion with our council groups, our activists and experts in the planning arena. The amendment seeks to bring an end to reporters being able to arrive at a completely different decision from that which has been reached by elected local councillors on a planning committee, based on exactly the same policies, material considerations and background information. Instead, reporters would assess only whether the determination by the planning committee had been reasonable. That would mean that reporters would no longer be able to change or reverse a decision that was reasonable.

The committee will be aware that there is already an established reasonableness test that is used to determine whether costs should be awarded against the council and to the appellant, so we are not really creating anything terribly new. If the grounds for appeal are limited to the challenging of unreasonable decisions by elected councillors, we will reduce the chance of developers automatically appealing in the hope that a remote official, who might be unconnected to the communities that are affected, will come to a different conclusion.

Andy Wightman

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I am happy to take an intervention from Andy Wightman.

Andy Wightman

I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton and apologise for not addressing his amendment 319 in my opening remarks. I had intended to address it.

The language that amendment 319 uses, including the phrases

“manifestly unreasonable in all the circumstances”

and, in particular,

“no reasonable person acting reasonably in those circumstances could have made that decision”

speaks to me of the Wednesbury unreasonableness test in judicial review. Is that not more appropriate as a test of the lawfulness of decision making rather than the merits of applications on appeal?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

As I said, we already have a reasonableness test in planning appeals, on the basis of where costs are awarded, so we are not necessarily reinventing the wheel in relation to reasonableness. I defer to Andy Wightman’s superior knowledge of the matter and I am grateful to him for his tutelage during our consideration of the bill, but I do not think that the proposal goes to the extent that he describes. I am grateful for his intervention, as I think that it is important to clarify that point.

The Lib Dems have consistently made the case for decisions being made closer to the people who are affected by them, including local authorities and local communities. Communities feel disenfranchised by the current appeals system. We have heard a lot about that today, and people in the public gallery believe that, too. When appeal decisions are taken centrally by Scottish Government reporters and ministers, members of the community who have been fully engaged in the earlier stages feel excluded, and the approach fails to respect local decision making or ensure that communities have a real voice in the decisions that affect them.

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

I have listened carefully to what members have said, but I am afraid that I cannot support the amendments in this group. The committee has received many emails on the third-party right of appeal, and I note that—to list just some of those who have emailed us—the convener of the Royal Town Planning Institute takes the same view, as do Heads of Planning Scotland, Homes for Scotland, the Institution of Civil Engineers Scotland, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Scottish Mediation Network, the Scottish Property Federation, the Scotland’s Towns partnership, Planning Aid Scotland and Scottish Renewables.

As a matter of law, the planning system has, on the one hand, the broad public interest, represented by the role of Government—local planning authorities, ministers and civil servants—and, on the other hand, the interests of the private applicant. In essence, that is how the system is designed.

Can there be—

Andy Wightman

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing

Certainly.

Andy Wightman

The planning system, as the bill makes clear, is not a contest between decision makers and private interests; it is about making provision for how land is developed and used. The private interest of the applicant is irrelevant in the planning system. The planning system is about how we allocate land in the public interest.

Annabelle Ewing

Okay, but at its core, the planning system has those participants—players—who have their respective interests.

Do I think that the planning system can and should be improved? I absolutely do. I have received representations from constituents who have strong opinions on the subject, many of them having been affected by serial applications and so forth. I recently had a discussion with some of those constituents about the third-party right of appeal.

I strongly believe that the system should be improved, and I see in the bill a number of important improvements that will ensure that individuals can make their voices heard, such as the provisions on a front-loaded approach to engagement and the role of the local place plan.

I understand, too, that new statutory guidelines on effective community engagement will be produced in due course. I look forward to the minister clarifying that point when he speaks to the amendments in the group.

I also understand that the independent planning review panel favoured the front loading of the engagement of local people over the introduction of more appeals into the end of the process.

Serial applications are a huge bugbear, about which I spoke at our meeting last week or the week before. I was pleased that the Government lodged an amendment, to which the committee agreed, that tackles serial applications by extending from two years to five years the period in which the local planning authority has discretion to refuse to determine a similar application. As I said then, it is important that local authorities exercise that discretion, because in doing so they will better serve the interests of the public, whom they are there to serve.

Excuse me. It is the committee that deals with these issues. Will people at the back please be quiet? I will have to clear the public gallery otherwise.

Kenneth Gibson

The planning system has to deliver much-needed homes, places of work and facilities, which often exist only because they have been approved on appeal.

Annabelle Ewing listed a number of organisations that have made it clear that they oppose the amendments. We took compelling evidence from Homes for Scotland, which is one of those organisations. It pointed out that 40 per cent of the houses that were built in Scotland last year would not have been built had there been no right of appeal. They are houses that people live in, and people were employed to build them. Many of the homes that are built settle in and become well-established parts of communities. They are often in areas of Scotland in which there are chronic housing shortages.

It is interesting that Monica Lennon mentioned her registered interest as a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, which is, as Annabelle Ewing pointed out, strongly against the amendments. [Interruption.]

The Convener

Excuse me. This is the last warning. If anybody else shouts from the public gallery, I will ask that the public gallery be cleared. We are trying to get on with some serious business.

Kenneth Gibson

The RTPI said that the amendments would, for example,

“further widen inequality in our communities by disproportionally favouring those with the capacity, time and resources to pursue an appeal”,

lead to

“seldom-heard voices in the planning system”

being “further marginalised”,

“weaken constructive early engagement”—

that has already been talked about—

“undermine democratically elected planning authorities’ responsibility to ensure planning decisions are taken locally in the public interest”

and

“clog up the planning system”.

I should point out that we heard in evidence that only 12 per cent of council refusals are overturned. It is not as if there will be automatic approval simply because there is a third-party right of appeal. That is not the case at all.

Heads of Planning Scotland said that, in its view,

“various proposals to introduce an equal right of appeal, or a third-party right of appeal, would be counterproductive to establishing an effective and efficient planning system that acts in the long-term public interest. That would simply make the system more complicated.”

It also spoke about some of the other issues that have already been mentioned, and Homes for Scotland said that such a right would be

“catastrophic in terms of jobs, investment and house construction in Scotland.”

I oppose each of the amendments that have been lodged in this group.

Graham Simpson

Throughout stage 2, I have said that I want to see a system in which people—not stakeholders, but real people—are fully involved in the planning process, so that conflicts are kept to a minimum. I have also said that the bill does not fit the bill as far as front loading is concerned. I am continuing to work on proposals that will improve those aspects, which I will lodge at stage 3.

There is no doubt that the present system is lopsided. Communities are not involved in shaping their areas to any great extent and developers are able to tick a box by holding ill-publicised and poorly attended pre-application events. It is therefore little wonder that people get annoyed when things appear seemingly out of the blue.

Only applicants can make an appeal. We have a situation where one person—a Government-appointed reporter—can overturn a locally taken democratic decision. It all feels unsatisfactory, and it is little wonder that people want to change the system.

Running counter to that is the argument—this also has merit, and it was very well expressed by Annabelle Ewing and Kenny Gibson—that allowing third parties to appeal consent decisions will scare the horses and slow up a system that already operates at snail’s pace.

There are valid arguments on both sides, and they both need to be heard with respect. The key question for the committee is whether equal rights of appeal would lead to a more robust plan-led system that encourages more meaningful up-front engagement and agreement between communities and developers, or whether their implementation would lead to delays and reduce early engagement and investment in housing and development.

The Government has not addressed any of those issues; they are not mentioned in the bill. In our manifesto for last year’s local government elections, we said that we should end appeals that are heard centrally if applications and decisions are in line with development plans, which is why we supported amendments 58 and 58A. Those appeals should be heard only by the full council or by a local appeals committee—in other words, issues should be dealt with locally.

Let me be frank and up front about where my party is on the issue of appeal rights. We have differences of opinion. Those same differences exist in the Scottish National Party and in the Labour Party—they have always existed. We will come to a view, but for now we are keeping our counsel and will abstain if we are required to vote on the amendments in this group.

I assure members that we will demand changes at stage 3 that put real people—not stakeholders, not the vested interests that I described in the stage 1 debate, not the minister or his civil servants and not the planning industry bloggers who think that they know best—at the heart of the planning system. I have ready-made amendments if I am not satisfied. It is really up to minister to engage on the issue. I want to see a system that delivers development in the right places and with maximum community buy-in. The bill does not deliver that.

Far from shutting down the debate, I believe that, as Monica Lennon suggested, the debate needs to continue. There is still much work to do, but we must get this aspect right for stage 3.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I concur with many of Graham Simpson’s comments this morning. This is a very passionate debate. Communities the length and breadth of the country have made representations and we have heard from others that organisations have also made their views plainly known. They all perceive that the system is flawed and that the situation must be managed.

At the moment, there is the potential to stifle development. Equally, communities do not feel that they are part of the process or being given the opportunities that they want. It is vital to continue to look at the issue. It is too important for us to get wrong; there should be no knee-jerk reactions.

There is no question but that the process upsets people. We have had lots of information and lots of correspondence. People are very passionate about the issue. Individual members of the committee have a duty to ensure that we can do all that we can in the process, so—

Monica Lennon

Will the member take an intervention?

Alexander Stewart

I am happy to do so.

Monica Lennon

I am the convener of the cross-party group on construction, so I am very motivated to ensure that we have the right development and infrastructure for Scotland. Today, we are hearing both sides of the story and about some of the behaviours that people perceive or experience in their communities. I wonder whether there is an opportunity for some of the stakeholders and the establishment bodies that have been rhymed off to think about that.

When the 2006 act was passed, it brought in measures to front load the process and have that early engagement. Graham Simpson has talked about poorly attended community meetings and we have to think about why that happens. People continue to believe that it is a tick-box exercise. Would Alexander Stewart agree that there is an opportunity for Homes for Scotland to speak to its members and other organisations to try to do something about that, before we get to stage 3?

Alexander Stewart

I agree. There needs to be much more dialogue, discussion and debate around the whole process. We want to ensure that we get it right for individuals, communities and organisations. At the moment, we are stuck. We are not at the stage of getting it correct. We need to go back and discuss and rethink. I hope that that dialogue will take place so that, when we reach stage 3, we have proposals that we all feel more comfortable signing up to, given the representations that we have had from communities and others.

Kevin Stewart

There is a lot for me to get my teeth into there. I will start with the comments of Mr Simpson. Yesterday, I noticed that Mr Simpson tweeted about a survey of his that highlighted the importance of engaging with local people in relation to an application for planning permission in principle. I will not go on about the individual application, because I do not know at what stage it is currently. I completely agree that effective and meaningful engagement with people across our communities is vital. We need to properly understand the views, aspirations and strength of feeling, rather than just hearing from those who shout the loudest.

Graham Simpson

You helpfully mentioned my tweet, minister. It was about an application that, at that time, had not yet been made to develop an area of land in North Lanarkshire. I figured out that the potential developer would not have told many people about the application, which turned out to be true. I leafleted a very large estate, making people aware of the application. I did not say what people should think one way or the other. I told them about the pre-application meeting. Lots of people turned up at that meeting and far more people than would have done otherwise expressed a view to the council. The result was probably 50:50. I will not say who the developer was, but it was grateful for what I had done.

I have discussed the issue with big builders recently and part of the problem is that they are not reaching out and telling enough people what is coming up. People will not necessarily be against what they have got planned. We need to work with people, and that is not happening at the moment.

Kevin Stewart

I do not disagree with any of that. I handle such things regularly in my constituency and I did so frequently when I was a councillor. Ms Ewing mentioned effective community engagement and further guidance. I assure her that we will do everything possible to get that engagement right. The committee has already agreed an amendment in the name of Graham Simpson on guidance on effective community engagement and I was happy for us to support that.

I will tell the committee a story that I have told on several occasions. We sometimes find ourselves in situations that are rather confusing. Not long after I was appointed to my current post, I went into a room and an older woman told me straight off, “Housing minister, you need to build more houses,” but the next sentence was, “You canna build them here, here, here and here.”

10:15

I have talked about the level of engagement that we have in community planning, in which we set parameters and give reasons why certain things need to be done in areas. We should look to do the same with spatial planning to bring the level of community engagement up to the level of engagement that happens with community planning, particularly in the areas of the country that punch above their weight on that.

Some other things have been mentioned in comments. On 31 October, John Finnie said to the committee that, with certain applications, local people

“will protest and local members will follow the views of the community.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 31 October 2018; c 54.]

That can be irrespective of the development plan, and it illustrates why the right of appeal remains key to the planning system. Malcolm Fraser may have had a similar situation in mind when he talked to the committee. I do not want to assume anything, but he may well have been talking about that kind of situation.

I want stronger and clearer development plans; elected member training so that elected members know exactly what to expect and what is required; and performance provisions. Together, those can lead to a reduction in the need for appeals by applicants.

Andy Wightman

If the minister believes that that would lead to a reduction, why can he not see the argument for reflecting that reduction in the bill? At the moment, appeals can be made by any applicant. I agree that there should be fewer of them, and I hope that that will be the case, but it seems reasonable to attempt to secure that intention through the bill.

Kevin Stewart

If we are to get fewer appeals, we need to go along the path of early engagement, which Mr Simpson talked about. That scenario has been agreed by the Government and others. For example, Henry McLeish, writing as the chair of the Scottish alliance for people and places, which includes a number of the organisations that members have mentioned, said:

“All of us agree that we need to bring people and planning closer together to agree a shared vision for the places in which we live, work and play, rather than simply opposing what we do not wish to see.

However ... our members agree with the Scottish Government’s position that changing arrangements for planning appeals is not the means by which we can best hope to achieve this outcome.”

Further, Petra Biberbach of PAS said:

“I would say that a third-party right of appeal exacerbates conflict, it undermines the goal of very early engagement, which is what we want to see between all parties, and it would undermine a plan-led system.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 28 February 2018; c 38.]

The Government has been clear on a third-party right of appeal or equal right of appeal. Simply, we do not support its introduction, nor do we support any restrictions on the current right of appeal. The Government’s views are well known and are supported by a range of stakeholders, many of whom have been mentioned, so I will not go through them all again. Many community groups want investment and improvement in their areas, but their ambitions could be hampered by additional appeals.

I would like to set the record straight and clarify that this issue was explored during the independent review of the planning system. There was not a specific question on it, because the panel asked much broader questions about engagement. Those who support an equal right of appeal made their views known through both written and oral evidence to the panel.

Having taken into account the available evidence, the independent panel concluded at recommendation 46 of its report that it was not persuaded that third-party rights of appeal should be introduced. It stated:

“Effective planning depends on building positive and productive relationships.”

Andy Wightman

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

I will take a brief intervention—I have a lot to get through.

The Convener

All interventions must be brief.

Andy Wightman

Does the minister accept that the independent review did not look at the applicant right of appeal?

Kevin Stewart

No, I do not accept that—I have just said that there was not a specific question on it, because the panel asked much broader questions, but those questions were asked.

Recommendation 46 continued:

“The evidence shows that a third party right of appeal would add time, complexity and conflict to the process, and have the unintended consequence of centralising decisions, undermining confidence and deterring investment.”

The panel concluded that it would be much more beneficial to use available

“time and resources to focus on improved early engagement”.

I agree, and that is what we have sought to do in this bill. We will continue to look at ways in which that can be improved and I am more than happy to work with Mr Simpson and other members to get to that point.

I carefully considered what the committee said about appeals in its stage 1 report. I recognise that many communities feel frustrated by the planning system and I have acknowledged previously and again today that we can do more to build on the community involvement that we have seen to date.

Like the committee, I want people to be involved in planning. As well as having opportunities to say what they think, people need to know that they have been properly listened to. However, I am certain that introducing new rights of appeal or restricting the current right of appeal is not the answer. In fact, I am convinced that it would do the opposite. It would create conflict and undermine efforts to improve trust in the planning system; it would add uncertainty; it would undermine local democracy; it would be divisive; and there would be no impetus to engage in earlier participation.

The idea might seem to be politically appealing, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that introducing this right of appeal would mean that people would automatically get the decision that they were looking for. An additional right of appeal does not change the circumstances that led to a decision being made in the first place, and experience in Ireland shows that very few decisions are wholly reversed as a result of third-party appeals.

Some of the amendments in this group also seek to restrict the current right of appeal for applicants. I remind the committee why appeal rights exist—it was to ensure that there was appropriate scrutiny of the denial of the right of landowners to develop their land. That rationale remains as valid today as it did when planning regulation was introduced—perhaps even more so given the pressures that we are facing on housing supply and essential infrastructure. If people who want to provide new housing and facilities are to be refused, those decisions must be robust.

In practice, over the decades, the ability for an applicant to appeal has proved to be vital. Many of our much needed homes, places of work and facilities exist only because they have been approved on appeal. This is not about big business having some kind of perceived advantage on the playing field. It is about the delivery of real people’s actual homes and jobs; it is about respecting and balancing public and private interests to deliver the development that we need.

If any of these amendments were supported, we would be asking applicants to take a leap of faith in the process. At worst, they would have no right of appeal; at best, a right of appeal might exist, to be concluded at some future date. There would be no certainty or clarity, and that uncertainty could make or break a decision to invest in Scotland. Restricting the current right of appeal could deter investment and put Scotland at a commercial disadvantage, with investors perceiving conditions in other parts of the UK to be more favourable. We cannot allow that to happen.

I oppose the amendments in the group on principle, but I will mention some details that are perhaps not as helpful as members intended them to be.

The amendments in the name of Andy Wightman and Monica Lennon would mean that the right of appeal for applicants and others would be dependent on a statement being made by the planning authority in accordance with the development plan. As I have made clear, that is only half of the story of how a decision would be made, and it could come down to a matter of interpretation of complex information and careful professional judgment, which might not be universally accepted.

The approach that would be taken under the amendments would also miss the vital ability of our planning system to recognise changing circumstances. Occasionally, there could be very good reasons for making a decision that is not in accordance with a development plan. For example, an emerging draft development plan could contain far more current and relevant policy intent than the ageing plan that it would be about to replace, but it would not yet be the development plan. Alternatively, there could be a worthwhile development opportunity that could not possibly have been anticipated when the development plan was prepared. Those are examples of the planning system working properly and responsibly by allowing there to be exceptions.

Amendment 51, in the name of Alex Rowley, would go even further. It would place the decision on whether an appeal right exists in any given case firmly in the hands of the person who is seeking to appeal—the very person who has a vested interest in having a right of appeal.

Amendment 60, in the name of Andy Wightman, has a similar provision, under which it would be up to the appellant to decide whether the grounds for objection by a statutory consultee have been addressed, regardless of the view of the body that made the objection.

The only restriction on the right of appeal in those cases would be whether the appellant had made a submission on the application. It would just take a submission about a planning application for third parties to preserve their right of appeal. Rather than making the system more efficient, that would slow it down and discourage the genuine, meaningful early engagement that we need more of in planning. What is proposed would damage the planning system, creating more confusion, conflict and challenge and less certainty and transparency.

Amendment 92, in the name of Alex Rowley, shows a complete misunderstanding of the purpose and content of the development plan. The development plan guides development management decisions; it does not directly authorise or prohibit development. Not all land is allocated for one use or another. Large development sites—for example, large residential development sites that require master planning—may be allocated in the plan. Land that is required for schools or transport interventions may be identified, but the plan cannot anticipate every possible development, large or small. In reality, amendment 92 would take away the applicant’s right of appeal, including for many developments that might be clearly supported by policies of the development plan and therefore in accordance with the plan.

I understand that Andy Wightman will not move amendment 325, but I will talk about it because it is important that we address some of the issues. Maybe the reasons for not moving it are the points that I will highlight. Amendment 325 would create new appeal rights where there had been maladministration or criminal activity by a member of the planning authority. With the exception of a recent reported case in which two councillors were charged, the issue has not been raised as a concern by stakeholders, and I am not convinced that such conduct is widespread.

10:30

There has been no consultation with planning authorities about the amendment, and real impracticalities are involved. As the right of appeal would not be linked to the decision on a particular application but would arise only at the point when the guilt of a member of the planning authority was established, it would have to run from that date and not from the date of the planning decision.

In effect, that would mean that it would not be possible to know, at the time a decision was made, whether a right of appeal might arise. By the time any investigations and prosecutions had been completed and someone had been found guilty of wrongdoing, it would be entirely possible—perhaps even likely—that the development would have been completed. In addition, there is no requirement that the maladministration or criminal activity in question need even relate to the particular application in question. Therefore, I am pleased that Mr Wightman will not move the amendment today. I am happy to have further discussions with him on the issue, but that amendment was not suitable.

Amendment 319, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, takes a different approach from other proposals in the group. It would introduce a further restriction on the ability of ministers to deal with appeals. It creates a requirement to consider whether the decision of the planning authority is “manifestly unreasonable”. Although proposed new section 48(1B) of the 1997 act makes it clear that a decision would be “manifestly unreasonable” if no reasonable person could have made the decision, that is without prejudice to ministers being entitled to consider that a decision is “manifestly unreasonable” in other circumstances. Ministers may reverse or vary the decisions of a planning authority where they consider that it is reasonable to do so.

Amendment 319 would serve to add another decision-making step and introduce the potential for further grounds of legal challenge to the reasons given on appeal decisions. Any party can already challenge a decision in the courts on the ground that the decision maker has acted unreasonably, but that right is distinct and separate from the right of appeal.

The committee must not underestimate the importance of its decisions on this group of amendments. They could fundamentally change our planning system and shift the whole focus of this package of planning reforms from greater collaboration to more conflict, very much to the detriment of investment in Scotland.

An additional right of appeal may, on the face of it, appear to promise a lot to communities and individuals, but I am concerned that that claim is at best misguided and at worst misleading. An additional right of appeal will simply add time, cost, procedure and conflict to an already stretched planning service. Does the committee really think that the result will be so different? Is it fair to suggest to communities that they can expect to overturn decisions and put a block on development? The evidence shows that that will not be the case.

Okay. You have made that point three times, now.

Alex Rowley

The problem with that is that people can spend time, energy and, often, resource in getting involved at the early stages, but can be completely ignored if a developer does not like the outcome. The developer then has the right of appeal, but the people who put everything into the process have no rights. That is where the process breaks down.

The minister was quite critical of my amendment 92, but it came about as a result of discussions that I had on my amendment 51 with two of—I think—the most senior planners in Scotland. If I have got that completely wrong, I need to stop taking advice from very senior planners.

I do not intend to move amendment 92, but I certainly intend to press my amendment 51. I will finish by saying again that it seems that only one party in the Parliament is fundamentally opposed to addressing the concerns that people in communities across Scotland are raising, so the other parties need to come together and work together so that at stage 3 we can address the genuine concerns that are being raised in communities across Scotland. With that, I press amendment 51.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Abstentions

Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 3, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 51 disagreed to.

Amendment 59 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 59 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Abstentions

Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Convener

However, once agreed, only considerations that fall within the scope of those that are set out in such regulations would be “material” for the purposes of planning determinations under the 1997 act. I stress again that it would be up to ministers and Parliament to determine how widely to construe, and how widely or narrowly to frame, such material considerations.

Amendment 88 is a modest amendment that seeks to bring greater clarity and certainty to the planning system.

I move amendment 88.

Kevin Stewart

As I have already said, the inclusion of “material considerations” is an important and long-standing element in decisions on planning applications. There are references to material considerations in multiple provisions of the 1997 act, when considering appropriate periods for duration of planning permission, or revocation or discontinuance of permission, or for taking enforcement action. What might or might not constitute a material consideration can be different across those different purposes.

Finally, amendment 320, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton, appears to be helpful in bringing greater accountability to the way in which planning authorities use section 75 agreements.

I move amendment 98.

Alex Cole-Hamilton

Amendment 320 is a light-touch amendment, which goes some way towards solving a problem and restoring confidence in communities where development happens. We can all think of examples in our constituencies where communities have been let down by developers who have made promises at the planning stage that they did not deliver on.

In my constituency, AMA developed the Brighouse Park development on the Cramond campus, with section 75 commitments to deliver sports pitches and a pavilion. At the end of the development, AMA claimed a cash flow problem, seeded the still slightly contaminated ground with meadow flowers and left it at that. Many people had bought properties with the expectation that there would be sports facilities nearby and were sadly let down. There is no comeback on that, it seems.

Amendment 320 would require planning authorities only to submit an annual report, detailing commitments undertaken by developers and those not yet complied with as part of their obligations to planning gain. That would afford a greater level of transparency and create an in-built organisational memory within planning authorities, which would continue, despite the churn of elected members who sit on committees. Members’ successors would be aware of those developers who have a habit of making commitments and not delivering.

I hope that the approach in amendment 320 will incentivise developers to make good on their commitments by giving them the idea that they will be under the full glare of public scrutiny if they continually make commitments to planning gain and do not deliver. As I said, it will give planning authorities a healthy scepticism if there are developers that consistently fail to meet their commitments, and allow them to take such promises with a pinch of salt.

The other part of amendment 320 is an obligation on developers to tell residents in the vicinity of a development what they have committed to undertake. That will do two things. First, it will help local authorities to put pressure on developers to make good on those commitments and secondly, in some cases, it will soften the blow of the development on communities—it will win hearts and minds—because there will be a clear understanding, at letter-box level, of what developers have committed to and what benefit the community can expect to derive from the proposed development.

Amendment 320 would not introduce something that is overly bureaucratic. It would sit in the public domain and provide transparency and a clear level of scrutiny. I hope that it would go some way towards preventing developers from thinking that they can make promises and walk away once they have derived the capital that they sought.

Graham Simpson

By revising section 20, on the modifying and discharging of planning obligations, amendment 317 would allow applicants and authorities to agree changes to planning obligations in a much more efficient manner. The outcome would be that a planning authority and an applicant who are in agreement on a proposed change to a planning obligation would not have to go through the statutory section 75A application process to give effect to that change. Instead, they could agree between themselves to modify the agreement. That would bring the law in line with the law in England and Wales—not that that matters; I just thought that I would mention it.

At present, section 75A applications for major developments can take up a disproportionate amount of time. For example, a pair or consortium of home builders working together on a development of several hundred new homes may wish to make layout changes that would increase the total number of new builds. Indeed, that is quite common. The wording of section 75A is generally interpreted by planning authorities as meaning that a formal application must be made in order to update a planning obligation. That means that a section 75 application for a simple and agreed change where the only interested and notifiable parties are the planning authority and the applicant clogs up the development management system. Sometimes, that can take several years to resolve. That does not make a lot of sense. Amendment 317 attempts to make the provision slicker and more streamlined, which is something that the minister has spoken a lot about.

I support John Finnie’s amendment 166 and Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 320. John Finnie’s amendment is about informing residents about planning obligations, which is positive. Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendment would require planning authorities to publish annual reports on obligations. That is about transparency. When he was speaking, I was thinking back to my time as a South Lanarkshire councillor. It is certainly not common practice for councillors to be told about obligations, so they do not even know what is going on on their own doorstep. The amendment makes a lot of sense.

Mr Wightman’s amendment 98 would remove section 19, which relates to the financial agreements of planning obligations. We had a good look at that issue. To be frank, we are in the same place as Mr Wightman—we have no idea what the provision means. It would be welcome if the Government were to clear up the confusion for stage 3, but at this point we will back Mr Wightman.

Kevin Stewart

Planning obligations are an important tool for planning authorities, developers and the public. They are used to ensure that the impacts of development are properly addressed, which ensures that the developer pays for the infrastructure required to make its development acceptable. We know that communities want that to happen, and it is in all our interests that planning obligations operate effectively.

We want the use of planning obligations to be consistent and transparent, to avoid confusion in the system. Currently, section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that a planning obligation restricts or regulates the development or use of the land to which it relates; under section 75(3)(b), the planning obligation can include a requirement for the payment of money. Section 19 of the bill ensures that there is no doubt that a planning obligation can require a financial payment without having to be worded so that it otherwise restricts the development or use of the land.

I heard what Mr Wightman said about the comments of others. I am quite happy for him and others to speak to me and officials on the issue, to give you the clarity that you require; I am more than happy to go through all that with members. However, section 19 does not seek to widen the scope of when planning obligations can properly be sought by a planning authority. Obligations would still have to have a sufficient relationship with the development in question.

The changes made by section 19 do not alter the general principle that a planning obligation requiring a sum or sums of money to be paid to the planning authority should be for a planning purpose or objective that should in some way be connected with or relate to the land in question. Amendment 98 in the name of Andy Wightman would remove the clarifications that are made by section 19. I therefore ask the committee not to support it, but to note that I am willing to speak to folk further.

11:15

Amendment 166 from John Finnie and amendment 320 from Alex Cole-Hamilton both seek to improve the transparency of planning obligations. I see the merit in those with an interest being able to be better informed of the context around planning decisions. A summary of the terms of planning obligations already has to be contained in handling reports, which are kept in the planning register along with a decision notice for the application. Those documents are already open to public inspection but there is scope to enhance that.

I would be happy to support the publication of the full planning obligation document; however, I am concerned that amendment 166 would impose an additional burden on planning authorities by requiring them to promote those documents. It is not clear exactly what that would require. The development management regulations already include requirements for the publication and notification of various pieces of information. We can find better ways of making sure that planning information is readily available to the public through the regulations and the improved online systems that the Scottish Government is developing. I ask the committee not to support amendment 166 and to allow us to consider what should be required in more detail in secondary legislation.

The question is, that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 166 agreed to.

Amendment 320 moved—[Alex Cole-Hamilton].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 320 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 320 agreed to.

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 145 disagreed to.

Amendment 146 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 146 agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 314, in the name of Ruth Maguire, is grouped with amendments 333 and 315. I welcome Ruth Maguire.

Ruth Maguire (Cunninghame South) (SNP)

Good morning. I will speak only to amendments 314 and 315, which I lodged.

The amendments address an issue that has been raised with me by North Ayrshire Council councillor Davina McTiernan, a community group, individuals and the council itself, which has been making representations on the matter for years.

The Town and Country Planning (County of Ayr No 1 Special Development) Order 1953 was made on 28 July 1953 and came into operation in August that year. Subject to certain specific exceptions, the order permits the carrying out of any development at Ardeer, Stevenston without the requirement to obtain planning permission from the local planning authority.

When the order was made, Ardeer was a major industrial complex, operated by a single user, ICI. The area covered by the order is now in different ownership and there is no longer a large industrial factory at Ardeer.

The absence of any planning application process means that there is no process to evaluate material considerations such as traffic, parking, design, noise and environmental impact.

In particular, members should note that the Ardeer site is adjacent to the Garnock and Irvine estuaries and is an extensive and important regional habitat. Because of the existence of the special development order, there is no means of protecting that habitat or ensuring that the impacts of development are considered. For example, the special development order grants planning permission without the need for an environmental impact assessment. There is no mechanism whereby such an assessment can be required for development at Ardeer, as there is no need for planning permission in the special development area.

The order’s existence also acts as an impediment to development. Inward investors are likely to be deterred from investing in tourism, housing or other clean uses of the area if a development of any sort could appear on their boundary without a proper planning process. Funders will want a proper process for any development, rather than one that could be challenged on the basis that it fails to have regard to environmental, traffic and other impacts.

Given that the Ardeer peninsula forms the north side of Irvine harbour, it could be argued that the special development order is a restraint on development of the harbour and Irvine harbourside. As members of all parties in the local authority and our two Parliaments continue to push the UK and Scottish Governments for the Ayrshire growth deal and proposals for Irvine harbour and harbourside and the Ardeer peninsula, the need for a solution to the problem is pressing.

Members have the amendments in front of them, so I will not read them out. Let me summarise their purpose and effect. Section 30(2) of the 1997 act enables planning permission to be granted by a development order in relation to land that is specified in the order. The power is rarely, if ever, used, but various old special development orders still exist.

11:30

Section 77 of the 1997 act currently sets out provisions for the payment of compensation if planning permission granted by a development order is withdrawn or modified, including circumstances in which a development order is revoked. If a development order is revoked, and an application is made within 12 months for planning permission for development previously permitted by the special development order, compensation is payable by the planning authority if that permission is refused or is granted subject to different conditions from those included in the SDO. That mirrors the provision under which the planning authority is liable to pay compensation where planning permission that was not granted by a development order is revoked or modified.

Compensation is limited to circumstances in which a claim made within a prescribed timeframe shows that a person interested in the land has incurred abortive expenditure or has otherwise sustained loss or damage directly attributable to revocation or modification. However, because of the broad nature of the permission usually granted by a development order, the possible compensation for loss or damage is likely to be higher in such cases.

Amendment 314 would repeal section 77 of the 1997 act and introduce a power for Scottish ministers to make regulations concerning the compensation that may be payable on revocation of an order. Its effect would be to enable Scottish ministers to use regulations to set out the circumstances in which compensation may be payable, what the compensation would cover and the manner in which the level of compensation would be calculated; to require a claim for such compensation to be made within a certain period; to specify how such a claim should be made and the information that should be included; and to apply or disapply any of the provisions of part IV of the 1997 act, with or without modifications.

Amendment 315 would repeal various references to section 77 elsewhere in the 1997 act.

I move amendment 314.

Monica Lennon

As with Ruth Maguire’s amendments, there is a story behind my amendment 333. It is rooted in a very local example, so members should bear with me, although I will not give all the details.

Planning consent is rarely, if ever, withdrawn or revoked. When I was a local councillor in Hamilton, there was a particular planning appeal that was upheld; in effect, the Scottish Government granted permission for an incinerator, and everyone, across the parties, was upset with the decision. Further discussions were had with the then cabinet secretary, as the decision was not made by him but delegated to a reporter.

During those discussions, the option of revoking consent came up. One of our colleagues, Richard Lyle MSP—who, at the time, was a Central Scotland MSP and is now the member for Uddingston and Bellshill—raised the issue, as did many others, including me, and he wrote to the local authority, South Lanarkshire Council, to ask it to use the revocation powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The Scottish Government was sympathetic to the use of the power, but the sticking point was that, even if Scottish ministers had used the revocation powers that were available to them, any liability for compensation would have fallen to the planning authority. There could have been a financial penalty, if you like, for the planning authority, as a result of a decision taken by Scottish ministers.

This is a very niche issue, but I feel that it is as important as the one raised by Ruth Maguire. I had a chat with the minister yesterday; I know that he has some concerns about the amendment and, although I have taken a steer from the Parliament’s legislation team, I concede that it is not drafted as perfectly as it might be. Nevertheless, the intention behind it is to ensure that where ministers, for good reason, want to revoke a planning consent, any liability for compensation that results should not be transferred to a planning authority.

I admit that when I first read Ruth Maguire’s amendments, I was not quite sure about them, but now that I am aware of the back story, I am happy to support them. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about amendment 333 in my name.

Kevin Stewart

The introduction of the planning system denied landowners the right to develop their land, unless permitted to do so. As a result, once a site has planning permission, a landowner or developer should be able to commit to making that investment, confident that the principle of development has been accepted. Occasionally, however, there can be circumstances in which it might be appropriate to revoke or modify a planning permission and thereby remove the right to develop. The 1997 act specifically allows for that where, for example, an administrative error has led to permission being granted mistakenly or where a significant change has taken place that means that the proposed development is no longer acceptable. However, in those very rare circumstances, property owners are entitled to expect to be fairly compensated for loss of given rights to develop their property.

The provisions for compensation are a long-established part of the planning regime and have been included in the system to ensure fairness if it becomes necessary to revoke or modify planning permission that has already been granted. Crucially, blanket removal of those provisions could put the planning system—and the bill—in conflict with the European convention on human rights. Moreover, it would carry the risk of making the system far more uncertain. For example, following a change of administration, might the new elected members be tempted—or pressured—to revoke a consent that had been granted controversially under the previous administration? That would pose a fundamental problem for planning: it would erode and undermine the value of planning permission and thereby significantly undermine investor confidence. I also point out that there has been no consultation on what is a very serious proposed change.

I am willing to have that discussion, but I am not, at this moment, willing to say that I will move one way or t’other on the issue. A lot of work has to be done on it. I wish that we had discussed it earlier; we have an opportunity to do so now, but I guarantee nothing.

I support the aims behind Ruth Maguire’s amendments 314 and 315 and the reasonable approach that has been taken in them. There will sometimes be circumstances in which it is appropriate for Scottish ministers to modify or even revoke the permitted development rights that are available under a development order, whether a general or a special development order.

In those cases, there may well be circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to pay the amount of compensation that might have been envisaged when the order was made. There is clearly a difference between planning permissions expressly granted by a planning authority following detailed considerations of the merits of a particular application, on the one hand, and a general permitted development right that applies to certain development across the country, or in a specific part of it, as described in a development order.

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 332 agreed to.

Amendment 147 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Abstentions

Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 5, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 147 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 326, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 327, 328, 310 to 312, 23, 313, 24, 268, 17, 18 and 276.

Andy Wightman

We are now on to a new section on the training and performance of planning authorities. My amendments fall into three distinct groups: amendments 326, 327 and 328 are one group; amendment 310 stands on its own; and amendments 311, 312 and 313 are the third group.

The Planning (Scotland) Bill and the wider review of which it is part place a number of new duties on planning authorities, which will have resource implications at a time when resources in the planning service are scarce and are continuing to fall, as the committee has heard several times already.

In spite of that, we have seen consistent improvements in the speed of planning decision making. There is also increasing understanding across the board that we need to focus more on measuring the quality of decision making in planning, which is not just about making decisions quickly but about making the right decisions that ultimately contribute to making better places.

The penalty clause provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 were introduced through section 55 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. The provisions allow the Scottish ministers to vary planning fees when a planning authority is deemed to be performing unsatisfactorily, and they have never been used. It seems counterproductive to threaten to withdraw funding from planning authorities that need to improve.

The improvements in planning that the bill seeks to drive will require skills and resource support to be provided to the planning authorities that are responsible for implementing them. Amendments 326, 327 and 328 would make a clear statement of intent to that end. The penalty provisions have never had support in the planning community, and I am pleased to put forward my amendments for consideration.

11:45

Amendment 310 provides for flexibility and a transition period in relation to the bill’s duties with regard to mandatory planning. It seeks to enable members of planning committees to continue to take part in decisions provided that they have begun the proposed statutory training. In providing for a transition period, it would soften the bill’s rather hard provisions on the undertaking of statutory training by members of planning committees.

Amendments 311, 312 and 313 seek to ensure that any mandatory training that is required of members of planning authorities is required of all decision makers, including the Scottish ministers. In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that the mandatory training provisions be removed from the bill, but it also said that, if they were to be retained, ministers should be subject to them, too.

In its response to the committee’s report, the Government outlined why that was not possible—it said that it was because of the collective nature of the Scottish ministers, in whose name determinations are made. Amendment 311 seeks to make a fundamental change whereby the Scottish ministers, as decision makers in the planning system, would be subject to mandatory training in the same way as all others who are involved in the process are. In my view, amendment 312 would overcome the objection of the Scottish ministers, which was raised by Kevin Stewart in his response, by providing that regulations could be laid that would name those individuals who were required to undergo the mandatory training.

Amendment 313 is consequential. It makes it clear that the scope of section 25(1), whereby functions can be transferred to another planning authority or to the Scottish ministers, extends only to a local authority—it should say “planning authority”—or national park and cannot extend to the Scottish ministers, because, if amendment 311 is agreed to, the provision would allow ministers to direct that their functions be exercised by someone else. The sequence is rather complicated. The amendment will become redundant if amendments 23 and 24 are agreed to. To be clear, as a matter of policy, I support mandatory training for planning decision makers, but it must apply to all.

If amendments 311, 312 and 313 are disagreed to, I will support Graham Simpson’s amendments 23 and 24. I support Graham Simpson’s amendment 17, which seeks to delete section 26, the provisions of which cut across the collaborative work that has been undertaken to date to continuously improve the outcomes of the planning system.

I support amendment 268, but I oppose amendment 18, which would introduce extra bureaucracy and administration in relation to provisions that already exist in the bill and in previous legislation.

I move amendment 326.

Graham Simpson

I will discuss amendments 23, 24 and 17 before moving on to amendment 18.

Amendments 23 and 24 seek to remove the requirement for councillors to undergo mandatory training by removing sections 24 and 25. Amendment 17 seeks to remove section 26, which sets out how the Scottish ministers can assess the performance of planning authorities and includes powers to take on an appointed person or planning tsar.

On performance, the bill does three things. There will be a statutory requirement for every planning authority to produce an annual performance report, with the form, content and production process being set out by ministers in regulations.

Ministers will have the power to appoint a national planning performance tsar to report back to them on performance standards. They will also have the power to appoint a person to conduct an assessment of the performance of one or more planning authorities, to report on their findings with recommendations and to grant powers to pursue the recommended improvements.

What constitutes poor performance is not defined in the bill, which leaves the way open for the whole process to become very political. If a council took a series of planning decisions that conflicted with the agenda of a Scottish Government of any colour, now or in the future, it could be determined to be “underperforming”, and that would be a dangerous precedent to set.

The committee produced a hard-hitting and well-received stage 1 report on the bill, which was agreed to unanimously. It said of section 26:

“We note that planning authorities have for a number of years voluntarily reported on their planning performance. We received no evidence that this approach has been flawed.

Indeed as COSLA explained in its written evidence ‘The decision by Scottish Government to legislate on reporting came as a surprise’ and that it was ‘not expecting’ the inclusion of the national planning performance co-ordinator in the Bill as discussions with the Scottish Government were ongoing. COSLA comment that ‘It is the proposals on assessment which give us most concern. As far as we are aware, the appointment of an assessor for local government performance has never recently been discussed.’

The Committee sees no need or justification for the Bill’s proposals on performance and recommends that section 26 of the Bill be removed. We consider that the Scottish Government should continue to work collaboratively with COSLA.”

Amendment 17 would simply do what the committee said should happen. I have had extensive talks with COSLA on this matter and on other aspects of the bill, and it agrees with the committee on it.

Amendment 23 would remove section 24, and amendment 24 would remove section 25. Section 24 proposes that future regulations will set out the training requirements for members of planning authorities who sit on planning committees or on local review bodies. In fact, all councillors—every single one of them—could have to take decisions on planning matters, so the provision applies to them all. It requires that training be completed before such members make planning decisions. Section 25 sets out the arrangements to ensure continuity of the planning service should sufficient members not have completed the training, such as by handing powers to other councils.

The policy memorandum explains that regulations will specify a requirement

“for attendance and/or completion of an examination by members of planning authorities before they may be involved in the making of planning decisions by their authority.”

My view on that, which is shaped by my 10 years’ experience as a councillor who sat on the planning committee, is that councillors are elected to take decisions affecting their areas and it is simply an affront to democracy for someone to then set them a test to rule on whether they are bright enough to do so. In any case, the minister himself has refused to take an exam, despite being the ultimate arbiter on planning matters.

What does the committee have to say on all of that? Our report reads thus:

“We agree that in undertaking their functions on a Planning Committee it is important that Councillors are clear about the matters upon which they should base their decisions. We consider therefore that Councillors should attend training on key aspects of the planning system. We do not agree, however, that it should be mandatory and accordingly we recommend that the Scottish Government amends the Bill to remove this provision. We consider any training in planning should be considered as part of a continuous professional development programme for Councillors. We invite COSLA and the Improvement Service to consider broadening the range of training available to Councillors on planning to include

• best practice in community engagement in planning

• equalities and human rights duties

• challenges in urban and rural settings

• environmental and sustainability duties

If the amendments we recommend are not made then we consider that all decision-takers in planning should be subject to the same training requirements. This includes all relevant Councillors and Scottish Ministers.”

In his response to the committee of 24 May, the minister said:

“The Scottish Government is clear that Planning Ministers receive appropriate training on their role and functions when they are appointed”.

The response declared that imposing a training requirement would

“raise the risk that the Scottish Ministers’ planning functions ... could not be carried out”,

which is precisely what the bill proposes for councillors—talk about hypocrisy. Councils train their members in all sorts of things, including planning; they do not need to be ordered to do so in law. I am not just saying that; having been a councillor, I know that. However, I thought that I would check in any case. I wrote to every council in Scotland to see whether they train their councillors in planning, and 28 of the 32 wrote back, all of which train their councillors. Most also provide regular refresher training. This part of the bill is simply unnecessary because what it proposes is happening anyway.

Amendment 18 tackles performance in a rather softer manner than the bill currently does by calling for an annual report from councils that details the number of planning applications that have been dealt with, the outcomes and the time taken to process the applications. Amendment 18 creates transparency around performance without undermining the council’s authority.

Andy Wightman’s amendment 310 sets out guidelines on when training should be complete, but, since I want the requirement for training to be removed, I will not support amendment 310. Amendment 311 tackles the ministerial training issue, and I will not back that amendment for the same reason. Amendment 312 simply adds a bit of detail to amendment 311.

Amendment 268, in the minister’s name, is an amendment to section 26, which I want to see removed.

I will support Mr Wightman’s amendments 326, 327 and 328 because they are beneficial and will improve the planning process.

Kevin Stewart

Before I launch into all the technical aspect of the amendments, I should say that in the stakeholder engagement and consultation, there was overwhelming support for the training of elected members. There was also support from stakeholders across the board for what we are trying to do here around performance. When I talk about stakeholders, I am talking about communities and individuals.

In my 13 years of experience as a councillor, one of the things that frustrated me greatly was going to extremely important meetings to decide on issues such as the passing of the local development plan and seeing folk sitting with papers in front of them that were largely unopened. More of them would have been opened if the right training had been given.

Graham Simpson

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

I will take an intervention from Mr Simpson.

The Convener

Can you keep it brief, please?

Graham Simpson

It will be brief. Whether councillors open their papers is not affected by training. They could be trained and not have their papers open; that is an irrelevant point.

Kevin Stewart

It is a very relevant point. In my early years as a councillor, before the days of local development plans, when we were dealing with the local plan, I spoke to a number of members who quite clearly did not understand what was put in front of them. Training would have helped. This is extremely important, especially to stakeholders.

Performance is important to everyone who has a stake in the planning system. I am not talking about the big developers demanding faster processing. Householders, small businesses and communities all want an efficient service. Communities want to be assured that the planning authority is engaging effectively and is creating good outcomes in their areas. A lot of the correspondence from communities that crosses my desk is about performance in particular areas. Everyone wants to know that an authority is making good decisions that are based on a sound understanding of planning principles. As I said, our performance proposals were some of the most popular measures in our consultation, so the committee will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely oppose Mr Simpson’s amendments to remove those provisions.

12:00

In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that the Scottish Government should continue to work collaboratively with its partners and enhance the planning performance framework. I am committed to doing that. We will continue to work with the high-level group on performance, COSLA and other stakeholders to agree how best to measure performance and identify areas for improvement. We will work with them to develop the role of the planning performance co-ordinator, which is intended to support planning authorities and help to share good practice, and we will work with our partners to draw up the criteria and process for initiating an assessment of performance.

Those approaches need statutory backing and, ultimately, a sanction is needed to deal with authorities that fail to improve, despite all the support. The package of measures that section 26 introduces will provide the positive and supportive framework that the independent panel envisaged.

Mr Simpson’s proposed annual report would not be a helpful alternative in any way. There is general agreement that we need to consider performance in a more rounded way, even if we disagree on how that should be achieved. Requiring a report that reduces planning performance to the most basic numbers would not support that aim and would send entirely the wrong message about what we value.

My proposals take on board specific concerns that were raised about the provisions. Amendment 268 removes the provision that a person could be subject to criminal proceedings if they did not provide information that was requested in connection with a performance assessment. Although that is a standard provision—for example, it is used in relation to school inspections—I am satisfied that it is not necessary here. If an appointed person is not provided with information that they need to carry out the assessment, the report is likely to mention that, which is sufficient encouragement.

I have accepted the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s recommendation that the power to prescribe the co-ordinator’s functions should be subject to affirmative procedure. We will come to that in a later group that includes a composite amendment that covers a number of regulation-making powers.

I turn to Mr Wightman’s amendments on fees. The Scottish Government has made it clear for many years that any increase in fees must be linked with improved performance. That is particularly important when planning authorities, COSLA and the RTPI have been asking us to raise planning fees to enable full cost recovery.

People are concerned that increased fees do not necessarily fund the planning service. I cannot commit to increasing planning fees to move towards full cost recovery without having sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that those fees are reinvested in the service and lead to performance improvements. It is for local authorities to decide how their income should be spent, but robust performance monitoring should ensure that appropriate investment is made to meet agreed performance indicators.

Mr Wightman’s amendments would remove ministers’ ability to reflect individual authorities’ performance in the fees that they can charge. Using the penalty clause would always be a last resort, but removing it would leave the Scottish ministers with few concrete options to use when planning authorities did not make expected improvements.

Not only were the proposals on training elected members overwhelmingly supported in our consultation, but people expressed surprise that such training was not already mandatory. Ensuring that decisions are made in a consistent manner and based in solid planning knowledge is an essential part of good performance, and essential to maintaining trust in the system. I urge members not to discard something that people all across the system want to see.

I listened to the arguments and I was prepared to lodge an amendment that would remove the power to transfer planning functions to another authority or to ministers if insufficient members have been trained. I have concluded that transferring decisions to another authority would not lead to faster decisions and that the reputational risk to an authority, should members not be able to take decisions, should ensure that the issue is resolved swiftly. Mr Simpson beat me to lodging that amendment, with his amendment 24. However, I lodged the consequential amendment that he missed, which will amend section 32.

The committee also suggested that if compulsory training was to be retained, ministers should be included. Let me put on record again that I am committed to undertaking training. I have received training on planning in my roles as both councillor and minister. It feels at the moment as though every day is a training session in planning for me. However, as I noted in my response to the committee’s stage 1 report, requiring that in statute raises all sorts of difficulties.

Section 52(3) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the

“Statutory functions of the Scottish Ministers shall be exercisable by any member of the Scottish Government.”

That is different from the way that planning authorities are constituted. If one or more members of a planning authority have not completed the training, the authority could substitute members on the planning committee or perhaps even change its quorum.

As I have said, the 1998 act provides that the

“Statutory functions of the Scottish Ministers shall be exercisable by any member of the Scottish Government.”

Amendment 311 seeks to alter that position and the effect of the 1998 act. In addition, if the Scottish ministers were to be prohibited from exercising their functions, no junior minister or officials acting on their behalf could do so.

I recognise that Mr Wightman has attempted to unpick that in amendment 312, by providing for an individual Scottish minister to be designated as responsible for planning and placing the requirement for training on them. I have to remind him that unpicking the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 is outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament. It might be possible under Mr Wightman’s amendment to require a junior minister with responsibility for planning to undergo training, as they are not formally members of the Scottish Government, but it would be odd for a junior minister to be unable to exercise a function that the cabinet secretary can. Therefore, I am sweirt to support those amendments.

Finally, amendment 310 would mean that a member of a planning authority is considered to have fulfilled the specified training requirements when they have not. It appears that the member could repeatedly start the training and never complete it, or perhaps repeatedly fail any required assessment and start again, but still be allowed to undertake planning functions. That would completely undermine the point of having a training requirement and I cannot support it.

Let me stress again that our aim is to work collaboratively with planning authorities and other stakeholders to define how performance should be assessed, how the planning performance co-ordinator can support improved performance and what training elected members should have to take part in planning decisions. Some members seem to think that I am fixated on there being a test, but I am not. However, I am fixated on the training aspect. I am happy to undergo training; that does not concern me one iota, and if there was a way within legislation to make me have to do that—other than by unpicking the Scotland Act 1998, which we cannot do—I would be happy to include that.

The statutory framework in the bill as drafted will strengthen the collaborative approach and help to demonstrate that we are serious about improving performance across the board. I ask the committee to keep the provisions as they are.

Andy Wightman

As I said in my opening remarks on the group, I support provisions to put training on a statutory footing. Reflecting on the committee’s stage 1 report, I was concerned that, were ministers not persuaded that they should be treated equitably, such provisions would not be appropriate.

I have listened carefully to what the minister has said. Stage 2 debates are conducted in a rather compressed environment that does not give us a great deal of time to reflect on what people have said, but I am prepared to take in good faith the comments that there would be practical difficulties, relating to the provisions in the Scotland Act 1998, to putting in place statutory provisions that require ministers to undergo training. Therefore, I will not move amendments 311 to 313.

I have heard what the minister has said on performance in relation to Graham Simpson’s amendment 17. The provisions in section 26 of the bill would change profoundly the power relationship between planning authorities and Scottish ministers in a way that would not be helpful. They would undermine the autonomy and authority of directly elected members who have the responsibility for making decisions about planning matters in their areas. Therefore, I am not persuaded by the minister’s arguments against amendment 17.

This is a complicated group of amendments, and I do not have anything else to say.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 326 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 326 agreed to.

Amendment 264 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 264 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 264 agreed to.

Amendment 265 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 265 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 321 agreed to.

Amendment 266 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 16 not moved.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

12:15

After section 21

Amendment 333 not moved.

7 November 2018

Seventh meeting on amendments

Documents with the amendments considered at this meeting held on 14 November 2018:

Seventh Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 2

Seventh Groupings of Amendments for Stage 2

Seventh meeting on amendments transcript

I will leave matters there. As I said, I will seek to withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment 334.

Kevin Stewart

I spoke with Mr Finnie yesterday. Although I do not doubt his good intentions, the amendment would place a significant burden on planning authorities and would divert planning enforcement resources away from resolving breaches of planning control.

Amendment 334 makes no distinctions relating to the type or age of the development or the potential impact of any breach of conditions. It would require planning authorities to report on the status of every major development in their area four times a year without any exceptions, whether the development had yet to commence, was in progress, or had been completed.

For example, the granting of permission for a housing estate that was built 10 years ago might include a condition that the grass on a strip of land be cut twice a year, and that condition would have no end date. Under the amendment, the planning authority would have to report four times a year on the status of that housing estate and how it was monitoring that condition. I presume that, if it found that the grass was cut only once a year, it would have to report on what action it would take against the householders, as the condition transfers with ownership of the land. That might seem a trivial or absurd example, but it would be the effect of such a broad provision.

Compliance with the granting of planning permission is ultimately the responsibility of the developer or the owner of the site. Planning authorities are best placed to take decisions locally on which developments, conditions and obligations need close monitoring, and on how to monitor.

I recognise that some developments, such as mineral workings, are different from buildings, in that planning conditions might relate to their on-going operation and to restoration after they cease operation. Planning authorities might well be expected to monitor such developments more regularly. Even so, monitoring should be proportionate and based on risk in each case.

I do not support amendment 334. As I said, I have spoken to Mr Finnie and suggested talking to officials about drafting an amendment for stage 3 that is in better shape to deliver what he intends.

Amendment 334, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 23—Liability for expenses under enforcement notice

The Convener

Amendment 267, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.

Kevin Stewart

Amendment 267 is largely technical. Section 23 introduces powers for a planning authority or the Scottish ministers to register a charging order, where they have taken action to ensure compliance with a planning enforcement notice or amenity notice. That will help to ensure that the costs of taking action are recovered, which, in turn, should encourage authorities to take action.

New section 158D of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which section 23 will insert, requires a charging order to be in a form prescribed in regulations. That will help Registers of Scotland, by ensuring that all the correct information is provided in a standard format. Amendment 267 inserts the same requirement in relation to the document discharging the order, once payment has been made.

I move amendment 267.

Amendment 267 agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24—Power to impose training requirement

Amendments 310 to 312 not moved.

Amendment 23 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Section 25—Power to transfer functions where insufficient trained persons

Amendment 61 moved—[Alexander Stewart].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 61 agreed to.

Amendment 313 not moved.

Amendment 24 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 26—Performance of planning authorities

Amendment 268 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 268 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 268 disagreed to.

Amendments 148 and 149 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Convener

I remind members that if amendment 150 is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendments 62 and 63, because of pre-emption.

Amendment 150 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 17 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Against

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 18 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 19, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 330 and 322.

09:30

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Amendment 19 seeks to revise the 1997 act and would beef up protections for national scenic areas. The 1997 act currently reads:

Wild land defines our nation. People think of wild land when they think of Scotland, whether that is through what they see in Hollywood movies or in photographs from their holidays as tourists. It is something that draws people to us and it is an important part of our ecosystem. I am the RSPB Scotland species champion for the rusty sphagnum bog moss—they call me the moss boss—which is a hugely important indicator of the CO₂ storage capacity of our peat bogs. The moss is exceedingly efficient at absorbing CO₂. Peat bogs are one of my primary drivers for supporting the inclusion of amendment 322.

To conclude, the amendment would give a power to ministers, not a duty, and they will recognise that it does not stand in isolation but has to be balanced against priorities for onshore wind development and the repopulation and growth of our remote and rural communities.

The Convener

Thank you. We welcome you sharing this experience with us.

Annabelle Ewing

I will make some comments about amendment 322, which I will not be supporting. I do not believe that we can rule out, in all circumstances, development on such land. What about the right of the people of remote, rural communities to have homes and to be able to continue to croft?

Issie MacPhail, a land expert and resident of Assynt, has described how wild land designations impinge on common grazings in north Assynt. At its annual general meeting in May of this year in Stirling, she told Community Land Scotland that

“this so-called wildland is our domestic space, for food harvest.”

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I recognise and share that point of view. Amendment 322 is not a block or barrier to the wishes of the people of the Highlands. It would give a new power to ministers, who would not take any decisions in a vacuum. Ministers would take decisions, if they needed to be taken, with full cognisance of the views of the person of whom you spoke.

Annabelle Ewing

I hear what the member says. However, although it is important to have champions for various species, it is also important to have champions for people—including people in our most rural and remote communities. Had the member conducted a wide consultation of people in the Highlands, I think that he would have found that they do not take quite the same view as he does on the matter.

I will also quote from a letter from Scottish Renewables on amendment 322, which I think we all received. It states that

“the broad definition of wild land ... could conceivably exclude the development of any onshore wind, hydropower, solar or bioenergy scheme in Scotland”,

and it concludes that

“a blanket designation like that set out in the proposed amendment to the Bill could have a very detrimental impact on progress towards Scotland’s renewable energy and climate change targets.”

Those are very serious considerations to be taken into account. For all of the reasons that I have explained, I will not support Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendment.

Andy Wightman

Briefly, I say that I do not see the need for amendment 330.

If we had time, we could debate amendment 322, on wild land areas, for a very long time. There is a substantial policy question. As Mr Cole-Hamilton knows, the wild land concept already has a role in the planning system. Were ministers to be minded to implement the powers that the amendment would give them, it would essentially put that concept on a statutory footing, and I am not persuaded, at this moment, that that is an appropriate thing to do. I am sympathetic to the notion, but it would be a major policy change to create a new statutory designation, or rather to give ministers the powers to do that.

Although I am sympathetic, I also have substantial problems with the very concept of wild land, and I always have done. I say that as someone who used to be a trustee of the John Muir Trust. As SNH says in its landscape policy on existing wild land areas,

“Measuring wildness is inherently difficult, as it’s a subjective quality experienced differently by different people.”

We have before us today a fairly straightforward decision as to whether we follow Mr Cole-Hamilton’s proposition that wild land should be put on a statutory footing. I am not persuaded that now is the time to do that, nor that the argument has been sufficiently rehearsed and debated. I see arguments on both sides, but I am not persuaded at this stage. I will therefore vote against amendments 330 and 322 but will support Graham Simpson’s amendment 19.

Kevin Stewart

The amendments highlight a key tension around how we manage our wild and scenic areas, which are so important to Scotland’s identity and international image, while ensuring the sustainability of the communities who live and work in them.

The committee has already agreed to amendments moved by Ms Grant that will require both the national planning framework and local development plans to take into account depopulation in rural areas and to support resettlement where that is appropriate.

09:45

Ms Grant has spoken eloquently about the importance of supporting vibrant communities in these areas. We must be very careful about projecting an urban-centric view of our landscapes on to rural areas if we want them to thrive. The special protection that is given by the formal designation of wild land areas could have significant repercussions for communities in these areas. Therefore, it would be necessary to take special care over the extent and the location of any designated wild land area, in order to take all of that into account.

Even if we take account of existing wild land maps, we could not assume that the same areas of land would be designated. Wild land is already given strong protection in national planning policy—the Government recognises the value of wild land in Scotland and sought to achieve a reasonable balance in current Scottish planning policy between protecting these areas and not unduly restricting rural development. However, it is clear that not everyone feels that we got that balance right. A report commissioned by Community Land Scotland states that communities feel “locked out” by landscape-driven policies. Some people have suggested that, rather than wild land, those areas should be known as “clearances country”.

We need to revisit that debate and, instead of significantly embedding our existing policy on wild land by giving it a statutory designation, we need to give it very careful consideration when we review the national planning framework and Scottish planning policy. I believe that policy is the right means by which to take that forward, allowing all the different circumstances that apply in different areas to be properly considered.

There are significant technical difficulties with amendment 322. As Mr Wightman has already touched on, Scottish Natural Heritage clearly states that identifying areas of wild land is inherently subjective.

I understand that the areas that are shown on the 2014 map are the larger and more remote areas, where wildness qualities are most strongly expressed. However, SNH is clear that what does or does not constitute wildness also depends on who is experiencing the area and even how each individual feels about that experience—Annabelle Ewing has articulated some of that. The 2014 map was not developed with the intention that it would be used to define a formal designation. SNH has published descriptions of wild land areas that show that, even within each area, there are varying degrees of wildness.

Given the differing views on the issue and the technical complexities involved, I feel strongly that amendment 322 should not be supported and that there should be a fuller and more open and inclusive debate on rural planning as part of the next national planning framework. That debate would be at risk if the bill added more weight on one side by giving wild land areas a statutory designation. It is a sensitive issue that needs flexible solutions that are tailored to individual areas. That is not something that legislation can easily deliver, but it is what our planning system is designed to do.

We already have designated national scenic areas, which are long established and more limited in scale than wild land. I agree with Rhoda Grant that it is important that communities are consulted by the Scottish ministers if they are designating or changing national scenic areas. That would help to ensure that any decisions are undertaken with the full and meaningful involvement of local people. However, I do not support amendment 330, because of the automatic requirement for annual reporting. It would be more reasonable to provide a report in any year in which such consultation is taking place. I ask Ms Grant not to move the amendment, although I have no problem with the consultation requirement itself.

I turn to Graham Simpson’s amendment 19. The word “desirability” in section 263A(2) of the 1997 act signals that the safeguarding or enhancement of the character or appearance of a national scenic area is to be treated as a desired or sought-after objective. The requirement is to pay special attention to that objective. Section 263A(2) does not merely create a duty to consider whether or not safeguarding or enhancing the character or appearance of a national scenic area is desirable. It seems odd to remove the statutory statement that this is a desirable objective from a provision that is intended to protect national scenic areas. There is no question but that national scenic areas already have a high level of statutory protection and the wording that is proposed in amendment 19 would not, in my view, strengthen that any further, so I do not support the amendment.

The Convener

I ask Graham Simpson to wind up and press or seek leave to withdraw amendment 19.

Graham Simpson

I will press amendment 19. I will be brief because we have had a very good debate. I am disappointed to hear the minister say that he is not in favour of amendment 19. It is a technical amendment and, as I explained earlier, it would beef things up. I do not plan to rehearse the arguments around amendment 322 and, having heard the arguments around amendment 330, I will not support it.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Amendment 330 not moved.

Amendment 322 moved—[Alex Cole-Hamilton].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 322 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 0, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 322 disagreed to.

Amendment 335 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 81, in the name of Graham Simpson, is in a group on its own.

Graham Simpson

I have spoken a lot, particularly during stage 1, about the need to front load, and some of my amendments have been a genuine attempt to do that; this is another such amendment. Amendment 81 would mean that councils would have to compile lists of locally significant buildings and invite residents to suggest what should be on those lists. It would allow local residents to nominate buildings for inclusion in a list and for there to be an appeal mechanism to ensure that the buildings are properly protected.

The amendment stems from personal experience that led me to conclude that we need a better system for protecting what we value. I will be brief. There was a proposal to demolish a centuries-old pub near where I live—it does not matter whether it was a pub or not—in East Kilbride, a new town that does not have many old buildings. The building was deeply valued by people and nobody wanted it to be demolished, but demolished it was, because there was nothing in place legally to prevent that from happening. I felt that that was unacceptable and that we should look for something better.

Introducing the idea that we should give people a chance to say what they value should please the minister; throughout the passage of the bill, he has talked about front loading the planning system and wanting to get people involved in it.

There is a similar mechanism in England: local heritage listing. Local lists in England play an essential role in building and reinforcing a sense of local character and distinctiveness in the historic environment. They enable the significance of any building on the list to be better considered in planning applications. A local list can celebrate the breadth of a local area’s historic environment by encompassing a full range of heritage assets in a community.

Andy Wightman

The Built Environment Forum Scotland observed that amendment 81 would

“provide more protection for locally significant buildings than currently exists for buildings listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.”

What kind of buildings does the member think would make it on to the list that could not be listed under the 1997 act? Would an example be a building in which a famous person was born, but which is otherwise devoid of particular architectural merit?

Graham Simpson

That would be a good example, as would the local one that I gave. People would be invited to say what they think should be on the list, but the decision would be taken by the council.

Andy Wightman

An alternative approach might be to seek to amend the current listed buildings regime to broaden its scope. I have quite a lot of sympathy for the notion. For example, there are quite a lot of fairly small, but inconsequential buildings that people value—there is one just up the road where the treaty of union was signed, and there are others in towns around here where famous people were born. Would an alternative approach be to expand the grounds on which listing could take place, instead of introducing a new list?

Graham Simpson

Mr Wightman makes a good point. Most members of the public do not know how to operate the listed buildings system. For example, they do not know that they can request that a building be listed. I am suggesting that we introduce a system in which we involve people and invite them to say what they value.

Having said that, a complete ban on the demolition of certain buildings would require some procedural safeguards and I accept that amendment 81 currently lacks those. It could be argued that it would be more proportionate to introduce the provision as a discretionary power, linked to the development plan, rather than development management. I would not be averse to making such changes at stage 3, should the committee back the amendment in its current form.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I am guessing that the spirit of the amendment is a presumption against the demolition of such buildings. Does the member recognise that some of the buildings could be at risk and there could be building standard or safety issues? Surely it is something that should not be considered in isolation, given that there are other considerations.

Graham Simpson

Of course. I accept that amendment 81 is not the finished article, but I think that it is a good idea and meets the point that the committee made at stage 1 about having more front loading and involving people in a way that is not currently done.

I accept that more work needs to be done and I will do that work. I would be very keen to work on the provision with the minister and across the political parties. However, I intend to move amendment 81.

Monica Lennon

You touched on front loading and the involvement of communities as well as a possible appeal system that would sit alongside the provision. Could that appeal be initiated by members of the community or community groups, or are you thinking about the owner of the building?

10:00

Graham Simpson

I was thinking more of the owner. Obviously, if somebody’s building is put on the list, they may take a different view, so we need to safeguard the people who own the buildings as well. That is the intention behind the amendment.

Monica Lennon

However, you want to leave the decision over who has that right of appeal up to ministers.

Graham Simpson

Yes.

With that, I move amendment 81.

Kevin Stewart

I will make a general point before I turn to the amendment. I can deal only with the words that are on the page in front of me. It is up to members to ensure that their amendments do what they intend them to do. In recent weeks, there has been much talk about fixing issues at stage 3, but the best opportunity for scrutiny of the detail is at stage 2. No one can guarantee that amendments will be agreed to at stage 3 or whether a necessary fix will be agreed. Members must be aware that whatever is agreed to at stage 2 may end up on the statute book, so if the amendments do not say what they are intended to achieve, I recommend that folk do not move those amendments.

The Government understands the value and importance that people place on the historic environment and local heritage where they live and work. It is clear that people want a listing system that recognises buildings of local importance that may not qualify for national listing. In a consultation that was carried out by Historic Environment Scotland in 2017, 89 per cent of respondents wanted such a system in their area, and 70 per cent of those respondents wanted to be involved in that process.

Scottish planning policy already encourages decision makers to consider the interest of undesignated heritage. In addition, following that initial survey, HES has been exploring proposals for local listing as part of the review of designations policy, which will be available for consultation in January. The new policy will actively take into account heritage that is not nationally designated and which has local heritage interests. One option could see local listing being compiled by community groups and potentially ratified by local authorities as a material consideration in planning matters.

Andy Wightman

It would be helpful if you could confirm whether primary legislation would be required to implement the kind of propositions that might come out of the consultation that you mentioned—for example, the communities creating their own lists that might be material considerations.

Kevin Stewart

As far as I am aware, primary legislation would not be required for that, because the matter would be dealt with under material considerations. However, I will confirm that in writing to Mr Wightman, so that he knows exactly what the intention is.

We are working on the issue, but I do not believe that amendment 81 would be a helpful way of addressing it. First, it is unnecessary to impose a statutory duty on all planning authorities to prepare lists of locally significant buildings. That would be an additional financial burden for them, and there are other options.

Orkney Islands Council piloted a local listing scheme in one parish in 2011. However, because of the costs involved and the implications for staff resources, it decided not to replicate the scheme across the council area. Instead, the council found that appropriate planning policies and guidance—through its revised local development plan—provide the necessary protection for local heritage. That has resolved some of the difficulties that Mr Wightman mentioned.

Secondly, and more significantly, the proposed approach to buildings included on a local list would be inconsistent with the established system of both designation and management of buildings on the national list. It would not allow locally significant buildings to be demolished in any circumstances, but it provides no control of alterations, which could completely change the character of the building.

That ban on demolition would create restrictions on the development of the site without any provision for consent to be obtained to allow development. Such a blanket restriction on development, which has no scope to consider individual cases, would almost certainly be viewed as a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the property rights of the owner, and the restriction on development would be much greater than for listed buildings or buildings in conservation areas.

The existing controls on works to listed buildings, including demolition, enable planning authorities to consider all the relevant circumstances at the time. They must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest, but they can also take into account the wider public benefits. Although developers generally try hard to conserve historic features, it may occasionally be necessary to demolish a historic structure to enable wider redevelopment—for example, an old bridge may have to be removed to allow for flood defence works or because it has become a danger to public safety. Any protection for locally significant buildings should surely allow for a similar system of consent for necessary works.

I ask Mr Simpson to seek to withdraw his amendment and to allow Historic Environment Scotland to take forward its consultation on approaches to recognition of locally important heritage.

The Convener

I call Graham Simpson to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw the amendment.

Graham Simpson

Based on what the minister has said, I conclude that this comes out of the “We’re working on it” file, which was also used when we were discussing land value capture. Everything that the minister has said suggests that he actually agrees with the idea, and if he agrees I cannot see why he would be so negative about the amendment.

Kevin Stewart

I am agin the amendment for the simple reason that, again, it would have unintended consequences as it is currently drafted. I reiterate that the amendment as it stands would not allow locally significant buildings to be demolished in any circumstances. That cannot be right, for many reasons, including the reasons of safety that Ms Lennon pointed out.

Graham Simpson

The minister is basically saying, “Leave it to us. Don’t put this in legislation. We’ll sort it out. It won’t even be included in any legislation.” Parliament has an opportunity to do the right thing and to deliver what the minister says he wants.

Annabelle Ewing

Amendments 90 and 91 deal with tree preservation orders and the preservation of trees in conservation areas. At stage 1, the Scottish tree officers group, which is a group of professionals who work in local authorities, gave evidence to the committee on matters to do with trees and their governance. We recommended that the minister should consider the observations that were made to us, but he indicated in his response to the committee’s stage 1 report that he would not be doing any further work on that. As a result, I took it upon myself to engage with the tree officers group over the summer to ascertain what its concerns were.

It appeared to me that the concerns fall into two groups, which the amendments reflect. The first concern was that, if individual tree preservation orders are silent on the question, permitted development orders could potentially override them. The group was of the view that that should not happen.

The second concern relates to trees in conservation areas. I understand that, if any works are to be done on a tree or any proposal comes forward in a conservation area that would affect a tree, the only means by which a planning authority can currently effectively protect that tree or refuse to consent is by making a tree preservation order, which is a complicated thing to do within a short timescale.

I will move amendment 90, but I intend to seek to withdraw it, and I will not press amendment 91. That follows discussions with the minister’s officials in which we have shared our perspectives on the mischief that is sought to be addressed. I think that we agree that that mischief is not well identified yet, but I think that there is agreement—I would be grateful for the minister’s confirmation of this—that a potential concern remains. I am keen that the minister and his officials have a robust conversation with the tree officers group to ensure that, if it has legitimate concerns about the operation of the tree preservation order system or about trees in conservation areas, remedies can be introduced in the bill.

When the evidence came forward, I took the view that we have a planning bill every 10 years or so and that, if there is any tidying up to be done in the planning system, a piece of primary legislation is obviously the place to do that. The committee might recollect that amendments 19 and 20 dealt with areas of the planning system that were deemed to be in need of some tidying up.

I would be grateful if the minister would confirm that he is willing to have those discussions with the sector and that, if there are any areas that could be tidied up or if there could be an easing of the work that is necessary to properly protect trees that planning authorities think should be protected in conservation areas, that work is done.

I move amendment 90.

10:15

Kevin Stewart

I confirm to Mr Wightman that officials will continue to talk to the tree officers group. The group might have a case but, as it stands, there is insufficient evidence about the impact of the proposed changes.

I realise that Mr Wightman will not press the amendments, but it might be helpful if I put the discussions that have been going on into the context of the current legislation.

Everyone agrees that trees play an important part in the quality of our urban and rural environments. That is why there is already a range of measures and legislative duties in place to ensure that there is tree preservation and planting so that our trees and woodlands continue to be protected. Scottish planning policy has a strong presumption against the removal of any woodland, and any approval for woodland removal should be conditional on achieving significant net public benefits.

Amendments 90 and 91 relate to trees that are situated in a conservation area and to tree preservation orders. TPOs are a well-established mechanism in the planning system that can be used by planning authorities to protect trees and groups of trees that are considered important for amenity or for their cultural or historic significance.

A TPO that is made by the planning authority under section 160 of the 1997 act may prohibit works being carried out to trees without consent from the planning authority. In addition, if a tree is in a conservation area but is not protected by a TPO, it is given a level of protection under section 172 of the 1997 act. Under section 172, it is an offence to carry out works such as uprooting, felling or lopping to such a tree without first notifying the planning authority and giving it an opportunity to protect the tree by making a TPO. The authority must do that within six weeks of the notification or the works can go ahead.

A grant of planning permission, whether granted through permitted development or a planning application being approved, does not itself remove the protections that are provided to trees by TPOs or, for trees in a conservation area, by provisions under section 172 of the 1997 act. However, a TPO may include exemptions from the prohibition that it creates on works without consent. Scottish Government guidance recommends that that should include limited exemptions for works that enjoy permitted development rights, which allows the likes of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and utilities companies to carry out necessary works without requiring separate consent for work that affects trees.

With amendment 90 and the first part of amendment 91, I understand that Mr Wightman was trying to limit or remove the exemptions for permitted development rights. I do not support that intention, as it could have restricted or delayed the ability of statutory undertakers to carry out necessary work to provide and maintain infrastructure, for example, and it would have created additional burdens for planning authorities for work that would be approved in the vast majority of cases.

However, that is not what the amendments would have done. Please bear with me as this will get quite technical, but the committee deserves to hear it.

Section 160(6) of the 1997 act allows for the cutting down, topping and lopping of a tree in certain circumstances, even if it is protected by a TPO. Those circumstances include, under section 160(6)(ba), where the work is authorised by an order that grants development consent. Section 160(6) does not authorise any works to a tree; it just prevents a TPO from prohibiting certain works to a tree in the specified circumstances. Section 172(1A) of the 1997 act similarly disapplies the requirement for notification of work to trees in a conservation area if the work

“is authorised by an order granting development consent.”

Mr Wightman’s amendments state that nothing in those subsections

“is to be taken as permitting a development order under section 30 to authorise the uprooting, felling or lopping of trees.”

However, those subsections do not refer to orders under section 30 of the 1997 act, which grant planning permission. Development consent, as defined in section 277 of the 1997 act, relates to the Planning Act 2008, which is United Kingdom legislation. Section 31 of the 2008 act states that development consent

“is required for development”

that

“is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project.”

Such projects are almost all large-scale projects located in England and Wales. The only case where it would be required in Scotland would be for certain cross-country oil or gas pipelines where one end is in England or Wales and the other end is in Scotland. Therefore, nothing in the sections that are mentioned in amendments 90 and 91 would permit a development order under section 30 to override the existing protections in any case.

I know that this is not the easiest part of the legislation to follow and I would like to thank Mr Wightman for taking the time to discuss these amendments with officials. I am glad that he has agreed not to press them.

I think that I may well leave it at that. I could go into a huge amount of further technicality, but I have given the committee an insight into how complex all of this is and into the unintended consequences of the amendments. I am very pleased that Mr Wightman has spoken to officials. We will continue to speak with the tree officers group and we will continue to update Mr Wightman on those conversations. With that, I will now keep schtum.

The Convener

Thank you very much, minister.

Andy Wightman

I thank the minister for putting that on the record. During discussions on this, I encountered the Planning Act 2008, which is the UK statute on national infrastructure. I will just put on the record that it appeared to me that some planning authorities were incorrectly interpreting the consequential provisions of the 2008 act as they were inserted into the 1997 act.

Kevin Stewart

If Mr Wightman wants to pass on the names of those authorities that he thinks are interpreting the legislation incorrectly, we will have a look at that and we will talk to and write to the authorities concerned. To go a bit further than that, if we find out that that is a widespread practice, I am more than willing to write to all authorities to clarify the position or to get the chief planner to do so.

Andy Wightman

I thank the minister for that. I am not sure that I intend to tell tales out of school. Some of this information I deduced from conversations that I have had. However, I think that the minister gets the point that there is potentially some confusion in this area and that some clarification and tidying up needs to be done to ensure that the important work of protecting trees, particularly in conservation areas, can be more effectively administered.

Amendment 90, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 91 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 152, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, is grouped with amendment 182. Welcome, Gordon.

Gordon Lindhurst (Lothian) (Con)

Thank you, convener. The purpose of amendment 152 is simply to stop a gap in the current legislative scheme that means that neighbour notification for consent is required if a building is not listed but is not required if a building is listed. Not only is that counterintuitive, it places listed buildings on a less protected level than non-listed buildings, which in turn can affect not only the owners but the tenants and residents of such buildings. Neighbours in listed buildings are often aware that works are to be carried out and listed building consent has been granted only when workmen arrive and start carrying out works such as forming openings in walls, which may have structural implications in a building; installing additional bathroom facilities, which can affect drainage; or altering communal spaces, which can affect things as serious as fire safety.

All that amendment 152 seeks to do is to remove the anomaly that means that neighbour notification requirements are not required for listed buildings and it would simply make the requirement the same for both listed and unlisted buildings. The amendment has the support of Edinburgh World Heritage, the Cockburn Association and the Built Environment Forum Scotland.

In the interests of transparency, I should say that I am an owner of a flat in a listed building in Edinburgh. I am happy to take any questions from committee members on the amendment.

I move amendment 152.

The Convener

Members might want to ask questions when you are winding up. I call Andy Wightman to speak to amendment 182 and the other amendment in the group.

Andy Wightman

I support amendment 152.

Amendment 182 was lodged with the intention of sending a signal to the owners of listed buildings who are doing nothing with them and apparently waiting for the day when the building becomes too dangerous and has to be demolished. Amendment 182 seeks to send a signal within the planning system and make it clear that there is a presumption against the use of a listed building for any purpose that would affect the reason for the listing. I am aware that the amendment is potentially a very blunt tool and that the committee has not been persuaded that presumptions against—or, indeed, presumptions for—are things that make good law in planning. I am also aware that much of the intention of amendment 182 would be better secured under property law reform. When I read amendment 182 again—it has been several months since it was drafted—I came to the conclusion that I am not persuaded by my own amendment, because it has some flaws in logic. [Laughter.] It is good to come fresh to these things. I will therefore not move amendment 182 when invited to do so.

The Convener

I congratulate the member on his honesty. If no other members wish to comment, I invite the minister to respond.

Kevin Stewart

Amendment 152, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, would lead to significant duplication for both planning authorities and the neighbours of buildings subject to listed building applications. The current position is that applications for listed building consent have to be advertised by a notice on or near the building and notices published in a local newspaper and The Edinburgh Gazette. Where external works are considered for any development that would affect the character or appearance of the building, a separate planning application is required, which triggers direct notification of neighbouring premises. In both cases, the notice must allow at least 21 days for representations to be made.

Amendment 152 would mean that, in many cases where external works are proposed to a listed building, neighbours would receive two notifications and quite possibly would feel the need to make two representations. They would also receive notifications for internal works such as the fitting of a new kitchen or redecoration, which are unlikely to have any impact on neighbours.

Monica Lennon

Does the minister accept that the planning authority can take into account only representations on the application that is in front of it? If someone has made representations on a separate planning application, those are a matter for that application alone. In looking at material considerations for listed building consent, the authority would have to look only at the submissions that were in front of it for that application.

10:30

Kevin Stewart

I will come back to some of these points in a little while, but what we have here is a situation of duplication that would add to the bureaucracy, whereas I think that most of us have agreed that we want to streamline the system and get rid of bureaucracy. Beyond that, I find it rather bizarre that people would have to notify their neighbours if they wanted to redecorate or put in a new kitchen. That may be fine for those folks who want to keep up with the Joneses and find out what everybody is doing, but I do not think that it is a requirement.

Gordon Lindhurst

The minister talks of duplication, but what will happen if things are simply advertised in the press? Who spends their evenings reading notifications in the press every day or week of the year to make sure that their neighbours have not submitted an application? I do not think that that is a valid comment on the matter. Internal alterations—

The Convener

You will have a chance to sum up, Mr Lindhurst.

Gordon Lindhurst

Forgive my lack of knowledge of the complicated procedures that apply in this Parliament.

The Convener

That is why they are all written down in front of you.

Kevin Stewart

No fees are charged for listed building consent, so there would be a substantial additional burden for planning authorities with no income to support it. Also, it is likely that representations on listed building applications would be on the same grounds as representations on planning applications, as most folk would be unlikely to understand the difference.

The notification and advertisement requirements are set out in regulations. Mr Lindhurst is trying to import wording from the planning regulations into the primary legislation on listed buildings, and there are some technical problems with that. I am happy to consider whether there are any significant gaps in the current arrangements and to amend the regulations if necessary, but amendment 152 goes much too far and I cannot support it.

The Convener

Thank you, minister. I call on Gordon Lindhurst to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw his amendment.

Gordon Lindhurst

The minister’s comments are not persuasive, in my submission. They do not assist proprietors in blocks, for example. Internal alterations can be major and they can affect other properties within the block. For example, in a listed building, flooding possibilities arise from the installation of a new bathroom in the flat above or below, and alterations of—

Kevin Stewart

Will Mr Lindhurst take an intervention?

The Convener

It is for Mr Lindhurst to decide whether to take the intervention.

Gordon Lindhurst

I think that the minister has had his say, but I will allow him to intervene briefly.

Kevin Stewart

The requirement is not just for a newspaper advert, as Mr Lindhurst well knows. The listed building application requires a notice to be displayed in the building as well.

Gordon Lindhurst

As the minister well knows, such advertisements are not always displayed prominently in a place where a proprietor of a building will see it. Also, a proprietor who wishes to have notification may have a flat that is let out to a long-term tenant, for example, and the tenant may not see the significance of a notice that happens to be placed on a street railing some distance from the flat that they live in.

Internal alterations can be very significant and there are fire safety implications as well as the other matters that I have touched on. Under the bill, the proprietor is not notified individually in such a way that they will realise what is going on and take notice of it, so I—

Kevin Stewart

Will the member take an intervention?

Gordon Lindhurst

I will not at this stage. I will press amendment 152.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 152 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 152 agreed to.

Amendment 182 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 231, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is in a group on its own.

Rhoda Grant

The intention behind amendment 231 is to make provision for compulsory acquisition of land that

“has been allocated in the local development plan for the resettlement of previously inhabited settlements”.

In previous meetings, I have spoken about the need to repopulate many rural areas, so I will not rehearse those arguments. Amendment 231 would provide a means of resettling land that had been identified for that purpose. It would provide a useful backstop power for furthering the resettlement of land.

Of course, any power of compulsory purchase cannot be used unless it is a final step, when the sale of land will not otherwise happen. Under amendment 231, the power could be used only if the land had been allocated in the local development plan and had therefore been subject to public consultation and scrutiny and a decision by the local authority.

Without the ultimate power of compulsory purchase, the cause of repopulation might be thwarted by powerful private interests. It is a useful power to have available, and its existence would focus minds. I hope that the power would never need to be used, but that does not mean that there should not be such a power, because the power would provide leverage, to serve the public interest.

I move amendment 231.

Kevin Stewart

I set out my thoughts on rural resettlement when I commented on other amendments that Rhoda Grant lodged. I agree with the aim of addressing depopulation of rural areas, and I agree that, in principle, the resettlement of previously populated areas would help to achieve that aim.

In previous meetings, the committee agreed to amendments from Rhoda Grant and Alasdair Allan on the subject. As a result, the desirability of increasing the population of rural areas and allocating land for resettlement will need to be considered in the national planning framework and local development plans respectively.

I cannot support amendment 231, because it is unnecessary. Local authorities already have the power, under section 189 of the 1997 act, to acquire land by compulsory purchase order

“to secure the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement”

that is identified in a development plan, or

“for a purpose which it is necessary to achieve in the interests of the proper planning of an area in which the land is situated.”

If an authority that has included policies on resettlement and allocated suitable locations for that purpose in its local development plan needs to compulsorily purchase land to deliver that, the authority already has a mechanism for doing so under section 189.

I therefore ask Rhoda Grant to seek leave to withdraw amendment 231.

Rhoda Grant

Given the minister’s comments, I will not press amendment 231. I will review what he said and consider whether the provisions that he described adequately fulfil the purpose of amendment 231.

Amendment 231, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Convener

Amendment 336, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 337 to 339.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

The bill presents an opportunity to simplify the processes that relate to mineral working sites in Scotland and to align planning with other areas of Government policy, in a logical way. Amendments 336 to 339, in my name, cover mineral working sites and peatland extraction sites.

Amendment 336 might look technical, but it is simple. It would add nature conservation to the recognised after-uses of mineral working sites. Currently, schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 sets out three potential uses for land that is restored following mineral extraction: agriculture, forestry or amenity. The list fails to recognise nature conservation as a highly valuable option for former extraction sites. Nature conservation could include the restoration of peatland habitats for carbon storage and the enhancement of biodiversity and other ecosystem services.

Amendment 336 stipulates that where nature conservation is the chosen after-use, it must meet the standard set by Scottish Natural Heritage. That could be the most appropriate and locally desirable after-use for many mineral extraction sites. It might be supported by communities and could be a standard for developers to adhere to. Including nature conservation as an after-use could transform a scarred landscape into an important space for communities and nature.

Amendment 337 looks to tackle instances in which mineral extraction sites are left dormant for several years by rebalancing the responsibility on operators, rather than planning authorities. The current legislation—schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, on old mineral workings and permissions—empowers a planning authority to assume that a mineral extraction site has permanently ceased working when it has been dormant for two years and to therefore require the removal of machinery and the restoration of the site. However, the onus is wholly on the planning authorities to monitor whether sites are sitting dormant and for how long. It does not prevent operators from leaving sites dormant for years and then revisiting operations without input from planning authorities.

A 2009 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report shows a huge lack of information for most sites, including those in Scotland: more than half the sites listed have “unknown” status.

Amendment 337 would mean that if an operator had left a site dormant and had ceased operations for two or more years continuously, the planning permission would be automatically suspended. Operators would then be required to proactively apply to the planning authority for permission to resume operations. In view of the fact that planning officers are often up against it in monitoring dormant opencast and peatland sites, the cost to local authorities is also relevant.

Members will know how dormant and unrestored sites are a blight on communities and landscapes across Scotland. Auchencorth Moss is an example of that. Amendment 337 would put some onus on the operator to keep permissions up to date and would better enable planning authorities to become aware of dormant sites, which might benefit from some enhanced scrutiny.

Amendments 338 and 339 are about improving the processes for protecting peatlands. I read in the press this morning that there is a move to have the Flow Country designated as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization world heritage site, like New Lanark and the Grand Canyon. That shows its importance for tourism.

Around 0.5 million cubic metres of peat are still being extracted annually in Scotland. That removes a carbon store that takes thousands of years to form and results in the loss of almost all biodiversity value on the site and changes to hydrology that can have a negative effect on flood management.

With increasing global recognition of the need for carbon reductions from land use activity and in order to meet our climate change targets, it is clear that action is required to address the numerous old planning permissions for peat extraction. Current permission periods are lengthy and poorly regulated. There are cases in which peat has continued to be extracted for years after the expiry of permission, such as Moy Moss in the Highlands, where peat has been extracted for 13 years after the expiry of permission.

Amendment 338 would introduce a sunset clause for all old peat extraction consents, setting a deadline for companies to reactivate permissions or see them permanently expired. That would mean that all companies with consents on phase 1 or 2 lists—I am happy to explain those in detail, but I will not do so, unless that is what members wish—would need to reactivate consents in the two-year period after the Planning (Scotland) Bill receives royal assent.

The Environment Act 1995 introduced a requirement for the periodic review of mineral permissions. However, only 15 sites are known to have gone through that review process under the statutory arrangements. The requirements are not enforced. Opportunities for inactive permissions to cease are not being realised through the process, and there is no centrally available information about any sites where planning permission has at this stage ceased to have effect. In my view, those old planning permissions also act as a barrier to obtaining funding for restoration through mechanisms such as peatland action.

10:45

A sunset clause would remove long-term uncertainty about the status of carbon in the peat soils and remove the burden on local authorities to instigate the process, overcoming the issues of lack of enforcement and clear data. Importantly, the amendment stipulates that the restoration and aftercare conditions would still apply. I do not believe that amendment 338 runs the risk of encouraging developers to start production at unwanted peatland sites with old permissions, as it would simply require companies to reactivate consents in order to work at some future date, rather than requiring work to be started.

Finally, amendment 339 clarifies that any calculation of compensation for restriction of working rights for peatland extraction should take into account United Kingdom and Scottish Government policy on peat use. The Scottish Government supports the UK’s targets for retail soil supplies to be peat free by 2020 and for commercial horticulture to end peat use by 2030. The Scottish Government has also set a target to restore 250,000 hectares of peatland by 2030.

Although many members of this committee and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee are aware of the issues, it is important to highlight the matter. Amendment 339 would ensure that compensation calculations were based on market assumptions. The Scottish Government has, rightly, given high priority to the phasing out of peat use and peat extraction in recognition of significant climate change impacts and adverse effects on water, biodiversity and wildlife from damaged peatlands. However, despite increased understanding of the importance of peatlands, and policies to phase out the use of peat in horticulture with clear target dates, I understand that peat extraction in Scotland is still being given consent with extraction allowed into the 2040s.

Although planning policy makes a presumption against new commercial peat extraction permissions, schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 allows planning authorities to order the discontinuance of mineral extraction if it is in the interests of their districts. Any such order could trigger a claim for compensation by the holder of the extraction rights, as provided for in schedule 10 to the 1997 act.

Last year, Auchencorth Moss was regranted planning permission, despite environmental concerns and approaches from my constituents—not that that would necessarily make a great deal of difference—so I became aware of the issue then. Midlothian Council’s hands were tied by its inability to pay the lost-income compensation. Amendment 339 could give planning authorities the confidence to consider restricting working rights in strategically important areas of peatland restoration and it would provide more clarity for the scope of possible compensation claims.

At this stage, amendment 339 is a probing amendment. If there is an appetite for it, I recognise that some details need to be considered further, such as definitions of retail and commercial sectors. However, I hope that members can support the amendment in the longer term, as it shows clear changes in public interest in ensuring that peatlands are safeguarded and provides a realistic basis for compensation claims without undermining human rights principles.

I move amendment 336.

Kevin Stewart

I will start with amendment 336. I agree that it would be useful for nature conservation to be one of the uses that can be specified in aftercare conditions. However, the proposal that the standard should be determined by Scottish Natural Heritage rather than by the planning authority does not work or sit well alongside the standards required for other uses. An aftercare condition is imposed by the planning authority, and may require that the steps to be taken are set out in a scheme to be approved by the planning authority.

Claudia Beamish

If I were not to press the amendment today, but looked at that aspect of it and, perhaps, made an alteration to reflect the point that the minister has made about SNH, putting SNH in more of an advisory role, would that make sense?

Kevin Stewart

I will come to those points at the end. As Ms Beamish is well aware, I am happy that she continues discussions with me and my officials around those matters. I will clarify all those points at the end.

Amendment 336, in effect, provides that what the planning authority may approve is to be determined by SNH. It elevates the role of SNH to that of decision maker rather than adviser. That is why I would not support the aim of including nature conservation in aftercare conditions and I ask Ms Beamish to withdraw that amendment.

On the other amendments in the group, I recognise that there are particular issues around peat extraction and the legislation relating to old mineral permissions that were approved prior to 1982. The policies and context in relation to peat have changed significantly since that date and it therefore seems entirely reasonable to reconsider the circumstances that allow dormant or inactive peat sites to be brought back into operation. However, I cannot support the amendments in their current form. In particular, amendments 336 and 337 are not restricted to peat but would cover all types of mineral extraction. That could have a significant impact on other industries, including aggregate extraction.

Amendment 337 would automatically suspend all mineral consents if there had been no activity on a site for two years. Planning authorities already have powers to take action where works have permanently ceased. Those existing powers include procedures such as notification requirements and powers to require steps to be taken for environmental protection, which are not provided for in the amendment.

Graham Simpson

For clarity, does the minister object to the period of two years? Would he be minded to accept a different period of time or is he against imposing any period?

Kevin Stewart

My problem is around mineral consents. We can have discussions about timescales, but the issue with Ms Beamish’s amendment is around putting peat and mineral consents together.

Amendment 338 would require all permissions that were granted before 1982—for both dormant and active sites—to expire two years after the act receives royal assent. Again, that would apply to all sites and not just those where peat extraction is taking place. Under the requirements for the review of old mineral permissions in schedule 9 to the 1997 act, those sites would have had new conditions imposed on them in the early 2000s as well as the requirement that those conditions be reviewed every 15 years. Most of the sites should therefore have been reviewed quite recently and will have up-to-date conditions in place. I see no reason why those permissions should be automatically revoked.

The amendments do not reflect the operational needs of the quarrying industry and would impact on its ability to ensure that an adequate and steady supply of material is available to meet the needs of the construction industry. That would also make it difficult for local authorities to plan for a 10-year land bank of construction aggregates, as they are required by Scottish planning policy to do.

Even if the proposals were to be restricted to peat sites, I would want to ensure that they were compatible with the various powers that are contained in the 1997 act. This is a very complex part of the existing legislation and there are a number of technical problems with the drafting of the amendments, which are not easy to resolve. For example, I recognise that amendment 339 seeks to reduce compensation for withdrawing consent for peat extraction relating to the voluntary targets set by the UK Government for ending the use of horticultural peat. Given the strong environmental case, I believe that there could be justification for that. However, some further work would be needed on the definitions, and also to make sure that the provision on compensation links to any provision on the suspension and expiry of permissions. It does not currently connect properly with amendments 337 and 338.

To conclude, I understand the reasoning behind the amendments in relation to peat. I cannot accept the extension to other minerals, and the impact that that would have on the construction industry, and there are also technical issues with the amendments as they stand. I would be happy to continue working with Ms Beamish to see whether we can bring forward adjusted proposals for stage 3, but I ask her not to press the amendments in the meantime.

Claudia Beamish

I have listened carefully to the minister’s comments. I do not intend to press amendment 336 today, because an important point has been made about the relationship between planning authorities and SNH in relation to other amendments, one of which was mine, as regards SNH’s advisory role.

I was aware that amendments 337 and 338 both extended beyond peat extraction, and I am happy to discuss that. There are also opencast sites that have been affected by the issues raised in my amendments, but it may be more appropriate to focus only on peat. However, I am disappointed that the minister has not recognised the importance of the circular economy in relation to the gaining of aggregates. I realise that that goes back into the present mineral extraction planning arrangements, so I acknowledge that it is complicated, and I will consider firming up those amendments in relation to peat only, because that was the principal reason for lodging them.

I will not move amendment 339 today either, because of the minister’s offer to discuss the complex issues around compensation. I am happy to have those meetings with him.

Amendment 336, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 337 to 339 not moved.

10:58 Meeting suspended.

11:06 On resuming—

Section 27—Power to provide for levy

The Convener

Amendment 308, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is grouped with amendments 309, 99, 183, 100, 101, 64, 102, 274, 65, 277, 340, 341 and 290. I call Adam Tomkins to move amendment 308 and to speak to all the amendments in the group.

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)

Thank you, convener. It is good to be back.

Part 5 of the bill is on the infrastructure levy, which is what my amendments are concerned with. Right across the political spectrum, we probably all understand the importance of effective infrastructure to effective development. From our constituencies or regions, we all surely know of illustrations of inadequate infrastructure stymieing effective development. That is plainly not in the national economic interest.

We all know that there is a statutory device—the section 75 orders under the 1997 act—to deal with the problem. However, that scheme is narrow and has been narrowed further by the recent judgment of the UK Supreme Court in the case from Aberdeenshire. I imply no criticism of the UK Supreme Court. However, under the section 75 orders scheme, a number of local authorities, including Aberdeenshire Council, have clearly been seeking to extend the reach of section 75 orders beyond what was lawfully mandated in the 1997 act. Therefore, there is a need to at least think about whether we need to supplement the existing section 75 orders scheme with a broader infrastructure levy such as is now in place in England and Wales.

I welcome the fact that the Government is thinking along those lines, and I encourage the Government to think a little bit harder and faster along those lines—that is what my amendments 308 and 309 are designed to do. They are probing amendments; I do not intend to press them today. However, I want to start the debate on the infrastructure levy in order to test the Government’s resolve on the issue and to gently encourage the Government to move more quickly and with greater fervour in the direction of understanding the importance of infrastructure to development.

As the committee pointed out in its stage 1 report, when the bill was published, in December last year, the Government said:

“no decisions have yet been made on the use of”

the power that is contained in section 27, to which amendments 308 and 309 relate. We are 11 months on. A year ago, no decisions had been made on the use of the power, so my first question to the minister—I hope that he will be able to respond to this in a few moments—is whether any decisions have yet been made on the use of the power. If they have not, why have they not?

We all know that, if there is to be an infrastructure levy in Scotland, something clear and precise will have to be said about the relationship between that levy and the existing section 75 obligation, because there is no detail on that in the bill, the accompanying policy memorandum or any of the other documentation that the Government produced when it published the bill in December. Is that detail available now? If not, why not, and when will it be available? Can we please have it before stage 3?

The committee also noted that the policy memorandum accompanying the bill states that

“further work is required to define a model which is ... practical and meets the objectives”

that have been set out for the infrastructure levy. I agree with that, but we have had a year. Has further work been undertaken

“to define a model which is ... practical and meets the objectives”?

If that work has been undertaken, can we please see it? If not, why not? That would indicate that the Government is not really serious about an infrastructure levy. That work should be undertaken before stage 3 and shared with us before then.

The committee also noted that a number of the witnesses whom the committee heard from during its stage 1 inquiry were what the committee rather nicely described as

“generally lukewarm about the proposals for an infrastructure levy.”

That is the language of fudge that is beloved of all politicians seeking consensus, and it is perhaps apt for today. A number of witnesses thought that it might be helpful to have an infrastructure levy, but they had concerns about the lack of clarity in the bill. All of that has been on the record for some months.

My amendments are designed to elicit greater clarity from the Government—today, I hope, but if, for some inexplicable reason, it is not available today, at least between now and stage 3—about all those important points of detail, which are required in the interests of ensuring that our planning system does not allow the continuation of something that is clearly wrong in the planning system at the moment, which is that the lack of adequate infrastructure stymies effective development that is needed in Scotland to boost the Scottish economy.

We clearly need to address the issue. I repeat that I am glad that the Government is seeking to address it in the gestures towards an infrastructure levy in part 5. I am simply encouraging the Government to go faster and harder and be much more committed on the issue than it seems to have been when the bill was put together.

I move amendment 308.

Andy Wightman

My amendments fall into two groups: 99 to 102 and 183, and 340 and 341. Mr Tomkins referred to the observation in our stage 1 report that witnesses were “generally lukewarm” about the proposals. I clarify that the committee’s report was unanimous and that a lot of work was done to have such a report, which would have greater weight. Obviously, some of the language was a consequence of that.

Personally, I am not persuaded that the provisions in the bill on an infrastructure levy are warranted. Mr Tomkins highlights one of the policy reasons for introducing the regulation-making powers—namely, the Supreme Court’s decision—but that, in itself, raises significant policy issues about who should pay for infrastructure and how it should be planned. Homes for Scotland was clear that, for an infrastructure-first approach in the planning system, we need to get the key stakeholders in the room—Scottish Water, SEPA, Transport Scotland, the planning authority and whoever else—to better align capital programmes of investment in public infrastructure with development plans. There is broad agreement that, in principle, we should try to do that.

However, it is important to note that, as the bill makes clear, when we talk about infrastructure that would be supported by a levy, we are talking about public infrastructure. The question is: who should pay for that? I am clear that it should be paid for by the public purse. I want a shift from a planning and development system that is substantially driven by private interests putting forward propositions for sites. In essence, it is a privatised system. As a consequence, section 75 came along and we started expecting—we are now proposing—that further financial provisions will be made by private interests.

I reject that. I want to see a shift towards public-led development, including appropriate provision for infrastructure. I want to see the wide adoption of land value uplift mechanisms at the outset in order to be able to support developments—instead of having a back-loaded system of demanding fees from people, I would far rather it was done up front.

11:15

The financial memorandum indicates that the infrastructure levy will raise very little money. It is also unclear how it will work. In recent discussions, we talked about the speculation that Edinburgh’s population will increase substantially over the next 20 years, which may require the construction or extension of water supplies in the Scottish Borders. If I want to apply for a consent to build six flats in Leith, should I contribute to the water supplies that would be constructed in the Borders for Edinburgh? Yes, but not through an infrastructure levy.

I will vote to get rid of the provisions in part 5 through amendments 99, 100, 101, 102 and 183. I do not believe that the regulations, which give ministers wide scope to introduce a power to raise a levy, are justified. On the basis that members might not support that approach, I have also lodged amendment 340, which makes the levy subject to the super-affirmative procedure in Parliament.

Amendment 341 would introduce a sunset clause. I note that the minister proposed the same thing in amendment 274, in a rather more succinct and elegant form, so I will not move amendment 341. However, I will move amendment 340, on the need to have fuller scrutiny of the regulations in Parliament. The regulations will introduce quite a big shift in policy, which is why we should not have them in the first place. However, if we are going to have the regulations, there needs to be enhanced scrutiny in Parliament.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Amendment 64 is a technical amendment to section 30, which allows ministers to modify section 29 of the bill so as to change and clarify the meaning of “infrastructure” in relation to parts of the bill and “the schedule”. There are two schedules to the bill. Amendment 64 clarifies that the reference in section 30 is to schedule 1.

Amendment 65 would introduce review requirements in relation to infrastructure levy powers. As the committee noted in its stage 1 report, it is not good legislative practice for powers to be granted that then lie on the statute book unused until subsequent Governments seek to use them many years later—potentially in ways that were not originally envisaged. Amendment 65 would introduce a clause requiring Scottish ministers to review the operation of those parts of the act relating to infrastructure levies and to lay a report on the conclusions of such a review before Parliament.

Such a review would provide an opportunity for scrutiny of the Government’s decisions relating to that part of the bill and would result in enhanced accountability. A three-year period in which the review would have to be carried out would ensure that there was sufficient time for the legislation to be enacted and regulations to be introduced—should Scottish ministers wish to do that—while ensuring that matters were kept under review in a timely manner.

Kevin Stewart

I will remind the committee how the proposals for an infrastructure levy came about. The independent panel raised concerns about the limitations of section 75 planning obligations and said that much could be gained from having a well-designed levy that took into account development viability. That idea was widely supported.

The Scottish Government subsequently commissioned extensive research and discussed the matter fully with stakeholders. It is fair to say that we have not yet found the perfect solution. However, I remain convinced that the concept of a levy is worth pursuing, as it could play a key role in supporting the delivery of future development.

I emphasise that the levy has to be well designed. We have an on-going programme of work on planning and infrastructure with the Scottish Futures Trust. We have also established an infrastructure delivery group, which will be well placed to help us with that work.

We have to do further work on that, and it is practical to do so. I understand that Mr Tomkins and others may want to see us move at speed, but I am more concerned about having a well-designed, workable levy. We will continue to look at detailed design, but, of course, that partly depends on what happens with the final provisions of the bill. If the committee decides to keep the infrastructure levy, we will progress it as a priority in 2019.

Graham Simpson

Adam Tomkins made the point—which the minister has admitted—that there is a provision in the bill that has not been thoroughly thought through. Mr Tomkins was pressing for a commitment that more work would be done before stage 3. We have had a number of amendments, mainly from Opposition members, that have not been properly thought through, and this amendment falls into that category. Can the minister commit to doing further work ahead of stage 3?

Kevin Stewart

We are continuing to work on that with our partners, but I cannot commit to that work being complete before stage 3. We all want to see a well-designed and workable levy. As members are aware, we had some initial work done. I was a bit sceptical about some of that work and its findings; therefore, I have instigated further work to make sure that, if we move forward with the levy, it is the right thing for all—for councils, for the public sector and for all stakeholders. My commitment to the committee is that we will continue to do that work. As the work progresses, I will be happy to speak to the committee about where we are, but I cannot guarantee that the work will be completed before stage 3.

There cannot be many members here who have not heard concerns and questions about the impact that new development has on infrastructure provision in their areas. We must give local authorities better tools to ensure that existing, new and growing communities have access to the facilities and infrastructure that they need. The public sector cannot pay for that on its own, but contributions from developers must be fair and should not deter the development that we need. A well worked-out levy has the potential to achieve that balance.

I do not support Mr Wightman’s proposals to remove the levy provisions altogether. Given his strong support for adding other land value capture mechanisms elsewhere in the bill, I am slightly puzzled as to why he would want to remove the one that is already there.

The affirmative procedure allows Parliament the appropriate opportunity to scrutinise the regulations, so I do not support amendment 340, in the name of Mr Wightman. I point out that Mr Wightman’s procedures would apply only to the first regulations under section 27; they would not affect any subsequent regulations under that section.

I have taken account of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s concern to ensure that there should be proper consultation. My amendment 277 requires ministers to consult local authorities and others before making regulations. That consultation will be open and transparent, and the Parliament will have access to all the published responses as well as to the analysis of responses. On the basis of that evidence and whatever other evidence gathering members may choose to do, it will be up to the Parliament to decide whether to approve the regulations.

Andy Wightman

The minister mentioned that the public sector cannot pay for this. I have two questions. First, does he accept that the capital budgets of public sector roads, drainage, sewerage, education and health infrastructure providers should be aligned with development plans as much as possible? Does he agree with that general proposition?

Secondly, does the minister agree that the majority of development that comes forward does not require a levy to be introduced, because section 75 of the 1997 act provides adequate provisions for raising sums of money for infrastructure that is directly related to the particular development?

Kevin Stewart

Mr Wightman has heard me saying on a number of occasions that, in my opinion, local authorities should do more to align capital budgets with their local development plan. I was a strong believer of that when I was on a local authority. When development plans are being formulated, cognisance should be taken of what infrastructure is required in the area to ensure that the development can go forward. However, I reiterate that I do not think that the public purse can pay for all new infrastructure to deal with all new developments.

Unlike Mr Wightman’s proposal, the consultation requirement that is created by amendment 277 will apply to all infrastructure levy regulations, and not just to the first set. I hope that members will support that.

I recognise that the committee has concerns that the power to establish an infrastructure levy may remain in legislation and will never be implemented. We have a range of measures that seek to address that issue.

Mr Tomkins’s proposal that regulations should be laid within a year of royal assent is not reasonable, and I am pleased that he said that he will not move his amendment. I would prefer that we had the time to ensure that we develop a preferred model and undertake proper, comprehensive consultation. If the committee wants us to get the levy right, that is the right thing to do.

Amendment 65, in the name of Mr Stewart, is not particularly helpful. It requires ministers to review the operation of part 5 of the bill within three years of royal assent. It seems to me that, if ministers are taking forward regulations within that time, there will be evidence of research and consultation in progress; if not, there will be little to review. In my view, the proposal would add unnecessary procedure and possibly take resources away from working on the levy.

My amendments 274 and 290 will mean that the power to establish a levy will lapse if it is not used within 10 years of royal assent. We need to allow a reasonable time for the detailed design and consultation that are needed and to introduce the levy in an orderly way. If the committee thinks that 10 years is perhaps a touch generous, I can understand that, and I would be happy to negotiate a final date to be put forward at stage 3.

I will take an intervention from Mr Stewart.

Graham Simpson

From Mr Simpson.

Kevin Stewart

I am sorry—from Mr Simpson.

Graham Simpson

That is okay; we are very alike.

I am pleased to hear the minister say that he is open to discussions, because my gut feeling is that 10 years is too long. We will support the amendment, but it needs to be amended for stage 3. I am not sure what the right figure is—perhaps it is five years—but we can discuss that.

11:30

Kevin Stewart

I am sure that we can negotiate that point—I am open to that. As I said, I think that 10 years is perhaps a touch generous.

Mr Wightman takes a different approach with amendment 341, which seeks to provide that the levy regulations would fall after 10 years, unless they were renewed. I assume that the intention is that renewal would be required every 10 years but, because of the way that the amendment is drafted, it would seem that one renewal only is required. In any case, I do not believe that it is necessary to make the renewal of the regulations a statutory requirement. If the regulations are working well, and if the levy is based on a formula that automatically moves with the economic situation—for example if it is linked to development value—there would be no need to review the regulations. If there are problems, or if the formula needs to be updated, I am sure that the Government of the day would do so, so I do not support amendment 341.

I ask the committee to support amendments 274, 290 and 277 in my name, and not to support the other amendments in the group. I am committed to establishing a well-designed levy and will update the committee on that as we move forward with it.

Adam Tomkins

Graham Simpson

We will all be relieved that it is the final group. I will speak to my three amendments only: 25, 26 and 27.

The committee’s stage 1 report stated that

“the infrastructure levy, as proposed, will not be a ‘game changer that will fundamentally alter and remove blockages from the system’.”

We agreed that, if it were introduced

“it will likely be more effective in some circumstances and in some places than others. This is because of differences in the volume and nature of development and the potential impact of the infrastructure levy on the financial viability of developments.”

The committee was deeply concerned about the powers in the bill that will enable ministers to collect all the levy funds and redistribute them to councils as they wish. Such powers seem counter to the Scottish Government’s intention, as set out in the policy memorandum, where it says:

“The intention is that the levy will be both collected and spent locally, with the potential for authorities to pool the resource for joint-funding of regional-level projects.”

The committee said, in its report:

“We support the principle that money raised locally should be spent locally”.

That is the intention of amendments 25, 26 and 27. The bill provides the Government with the ability to require councils to transfer to ministers some or all of their levy income, to be distributed among councils. That seems to be an example of the centralising approach about which the minister is in denial. Such undermining of local democracy is unacceptable. Money that is raised locally should be spent locally, as the committee said.

Amendment 25 would require the levy

“to be set by a local authority”,

but would not otherwise alter the proposed approach. That seems to me to be the right approach.

Amendment 26 would insert one word—“local”—to ensure that the levy funds local infrastructure projects. Amendment 27 would remove paragraph 14 of schedule 1, which provides that ministers may collect the cash.

The amendments in my name would therefore achieve three things: the levy would be set, collected and spent locally. That is the right approach.

We will vote to retain the levy at this stage. I am disappointed that the minister’s comments will save it, as local place plans have been saved, and I think that the provision needs a lot more work at stage 3. I hope that my amendments 25 to 27 are a step in the right direction; they would deliver what the committee asked for and are the right way to go.

I move amendment 25.

Claudia Beamish

I will speak only to my amendments in this group.

I note what the minister said, in his remarks on the previous group, about his commitment to a well-designed and workable levy, but I am concerned by the speed at which things are developing. I hope that the minister will lodge further amendments on the matter at stage 3. I intend to highlight the issue anyway; we will see where that takes us.

Amendments 342, 343 and 344 are interconnected, so I will speak to all three together. They would expand the potential recipients of the proposed infrastructure levy, to include national park authorities. Section 1 of the 1997 act stipulates that the planning authority is the local authority. However, national park authorities are unique: they are not local authorities but can be planning authorities under certain circumstances, as is set out in section 26 of the 1997 act and section 2 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.

As the bill is drafted, the levy would not be payable to national park authorities. Amendments 342 and 343 would replace the word “local” with the word “planning” in section 27(2), so that the levy would be payable to “planning authorities”, and amendment 344 clarifies that national park authorities would be regarded as planning authorities. Such an approach would resolve the problem—although these things are never as simple as they seem to be. I think that the terminology that I have proposed is consistent with other parts of the bill.

It is right to make the approach more inclusive. National parks bring huge benefits through sustainable land use and development, and focus on conserving our natural environment and cultural heritage. In my view, the infrastructure levy would be a welcome boost to funding for that important work.

11:45

My amendment 345 would add nature conservation management measures to the existing interpretation of infrastructure as found in section 29. Members will be aware that section 29 currently includes a list of matters such as communications, flood defence systems, supply of water and energy and, importantly, education and medical facilities. I will not rehearse the whole list, because members know it better than I do. However, section 29 does not make reference to green infrastructure needs. Nature conservation management measures would be an important addition that would allow contributions to be used for strategic habitat mitigation and the enhancement of biodiversity. Amendment 345 is drafted with the intention that section 29 could encompass green infrastructure and access management measures for biodiversity. That could include a variety of measures intended to prevent or minimise disturbance or damage to wildlife and habitats that would help to address the residual and cumulative effects of development. They might also help to facilitate further development in some areas, which could help public bodies to meet their biodiversity duties.

We will all be aware that Scotland is not—dare I say—the only country in Europe that still has issues in terms of meeting international targets. There are strains on local authorities, and some biodiversity officers are no longer in place and there are issues of assessment. I think that the bill could better reflect those strategic environmental assessments that specifically refer to the multiple benefits of green infrastructure.

The “Scottish Planning Policy” document recognises in paragraph 219:

“Green infrastructure and improved access to open space can help to build stronger, healthier communities. It is an essential part of our long-term environmental performance and climate resilience. Improving the quality of our places and spaces through integrated green infrastructure networks can also encourage investment and development.”

I would add that the two are not mutually exclusive.

I recognise at this stage that members and the minister will likely feel that the amendment’s wording is too broad and, as I remarked on a previous amendment, the minister might not feel that there is the time to introduce a levy at stage 3. However, I hope that members will feel that they can support the principle of amendment 345 at this stage. If required, I would be happy to work with members and the minister, depending on his comments, to agree a consistent definition for stage 3.

The Convener

The minister will speak to amendment 270 and other amendments in the group.

Kevin Stewart

I have no difficulty with the principle behind Mr Simpson’s amendments 25, 26 and 27, which is to ensure that key decisions on the levy are controlled by local authorities. Although it would be useful to have an approach that is consistent across the country, we have already included provisions in schedule 1 that allow for some local flexibility.

Okay: I hear that.

Amendment 26 would mean that section 27(2)(c) of the bill, about the levy, would read:

“the income from which is to be used by local authorities to fund, or contribute towards funding, local infrastructure projects.”

I will be moving that amendment. In fact, I will move all three. I press amendment 25.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 disagreed to.

Amendments 342 and 343 not moved.

Amendment 26 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Against

Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 26 disagreed to.

Amendment 344 not moved.

Amendment 99 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 99 disagreed to.

Section 27 agreed to.

12:00

Schedule 1—Infrastructure-levy regulations

Amendments 270 and 271 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 27 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 272 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 183 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 183 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 183 disagreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 28—Guidance

Amendment 273 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 100 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 100 disagreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

Section 29—Interpretation of Part and schedule

Amendment 345 not moved.

Amendment 101 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 101 disagreed to.

Section 29 agreed to.

Section 30—Power to change meaning of “infrastructure”

Amendment 64 moved—[Alexander Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 102 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 102 disagreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

After section 30

Amendment 155 therefore falls.

Amendment 69 not moved.

Amendment 49 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Abstentions

Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

The Convener

Amendment 289 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 315 moved—[Kenneth Gibson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 157 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 34—Commencement

Amendment 210 not moved.

Amendments 290 to 292 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Section 35 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration of the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

I thank the minister, his officials and all the MSPs who have attended today and previous meetings. I also thank all the individuals and organisations who took the time to contact the committee or attend a meeting during the stage 2 process.

Meeting closed at 12:13.

14 November 2018

Planning (Scotland) Bill as Amended at Stage 2

Planning (Scotland) Bill - Printing changes to the Bill as Amended at Stage 2

Printing changes are changes to the text of a Bill. It will not change the legal effect of the Bill.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee report at Stage 2

Additional related information from the Scottish Government on the Bill

Revised explanation of the Bill (Revised Explanatory Notes)

Revised Explanatory Notes Planning (Scotland) Bill Revised Explanatory Notes Planning (Scotland) Bill

Revised information on how much the Bill is likely to cost (Revised Financial Memorandum)

Revised Financial Memorandum Planning (Scotland) Bill Revised Financial Memorandum Planning (Scotland) Bill

More information on the powers the Scottish Parliament is giving Scottish Ministers to make secondary legislation related to this Bill (Supplementary Delegated Powers Memorandum)

Supplementary Delegated Powers Planning (Scotland) Bill Supplementary Delegated Powers Planning (Scotland) Bill

Debate on the proposed amendments

MSPs get the chance to present their proposed amendments to the Chamber. They vote on whether each amendment should be added to the Bill.

Documents with the amendments considered in the Chamber on 18 June 2019:

First Marshalled List of Amendments for Stage 3

First Groupings of Amendments for Stage 3

First debate on proposed amendments

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list, the corrections to the marshalled list, and the groupings of amendments. For the first division of the afternoon, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. That first division will last for 30 seconds, but thereafter the first division after every debate will last one minute. Any member who wishes to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

Section A1—Purpose of planning

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on the purpose of planning. Amendment 113, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendment 114.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

It is a pleasure to be the first speaker in what is going to be a bit of a marathon for members of the Scottish Parliament. I will attempt to keep all my comments in all the groups that I speak on as brief as possible.

At stage 2, we ended up with two purposes for planning. Clearly, there is not a lot of sense in that. One purpose was from me and one was from the Government. As you might expect, Presiding Officer, mine was rather shorter than the Government’s and was much to be preferred.

The Presiding Officer knows that I am up for compromise; that has been a hallmark of the bill. In that spirit, I agreed to consider lodging something between the two. I have come up with something that is nearer to my original version than the Government’s. I commend it to Parliament, because it is not Governmentspeak. Amendment 113 removes section A1, and amendment 114 replaces the second purpose, and is the new purpose. If Parliament goes along with that, we will have a purpose of planning that is fit for purpose.

I move amendment 113.

15:15

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

We support a purpose of planning for the whole planning system. Section A1 of the bill as amended provides for that, so we oppose its removal and we will vote against amendment 113.

Section A2 provides a purpose of planning in relation only to the national planning framework and development plans. It is our view that we need to retain an overall purpose, hence our support for retaining section A1. If we were to have a narrower purpose, it would be to reflect our international commitments, especially in the context of a climate emergency and the First Minister’s commitments on human rights leadership. However, those are being stripped out, so we will vote against amendment 114.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Amendment 113 agreed to.

Amendment 114 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 110, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 114 agreed to.

Section 1—National Planning Framework

The Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on the national planning framework’s preparation and content. Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 186, 20, 21, 173, 23 to 26, 187, 7, 27 to 29, 32, 174, 174A, 174B, 174C, 174D, 174E and 36.

Kevin Stewart

The national planning framework is a long-term spatial plan for Scotland. It will set out national policies for the development and use of land, and it will play a critical role in our planning system.

The amendments in the group focus on the content of the national planning framework. Many stage 2 amendments highlighted issues that members wanted to be addressed in the bill. Such matters usually related to policy rather than to primary legislation, but I have listened carefully to the debate, and I understand why members want to highlight in the bill the issues that are important to them. My amendments do not seek to remove such references, but it is important to ensure that duplication is avoided, terminology is tidied up and procedures are clarified.

This part of the bill looks very complex, with provisions being deleted from one place in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and put back in another, so I hope that members have had the chance to look at the version of the 1997 act that officials have produced, which shows how it would look if the amendments were agreed to.

At the top level, in section 3A of the 1997 act, we have brought together some of the key priorities for the framework and listed them as outcomes. Ministers will have to include a statement in the framework about how development will contribute to the outcomes. I will briefly set out the approach to each of them.

I agree that the framework should have regard to

“meeting ... housing needs ... in particular, the housing needs of older people and disabled people”.

That reflects the principle that drove multiple amendments on the topic from members at stage 2. The requirement for the framework to contain targets for use of land for all types of housing was inserted at stage 2, and my amendments will not change that.

Also,

“improving the health and wellbeing of people”

is a clear priority. That outcome reflects Monica Lennon’s amendments at stage 2. At stage 2, there was support for

“increasing the population of rural areas of Scotland”.

Including that as an outcome reflects previous amendments from Rhoda Grant and Alasdair Allan. Another outcome is

“securing positive effects for biodiversity”,

which recognises the point that was made by Graham Simpson in his amendment at stage 2. My amendment 28 defines “biodiversity”.

I have made one important addition to the list of key outcomes. I am sure that members will agree that the national planning framework must do all that it can to help us to achieve our ambitious targets for tackling climate change. Amendment 173 will add that outcome to the list.

Amendment 27 to the end of section 3A of the 1997 act clarifies that the Scottish ministers can set out wider

“policies or proposals that relate to the development and use of land outwith the National Planning Framework.”

That will ensure that the Scottish Government can continue to produce, for example, circulars relating to specific policy areas.

Agreement to amendment 186, in the name of Claudia Beamish, would mean that the life cycle emissions from national development must be assessed during the preparation of the national planning framework. I see merit in that proposal, so I will support amendment 186.

Planning brings together policies and applies them to places in a joined-up way, so links with wider policies and strategies are essential. My amendment 174 would retain the list of strategies and plans that the Scottish ministers must have regard to in preparing the national planning framework, but it would move the list to proposed new section 3CZA of the 1997 act.

15:30

I am happy to support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 174B and Rhoda Grant’s amendments 174C and 174D, which would add to that list

“any national strategy in respect of improvement of air quality”,

the land rights and responsibilities statement, and

“any national strategy for the ownership or use of land”.

The framework should naturally take account of all the things that affect the development and use of land.

Alongside the list of strategies and policies, we have included other policy objectives of resettling previously populated rural areas, preserving disused railway lines for future public transport links, and preserving peatland.

I support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 187, which requires that the framework include maps or other descriptors of rural areas where

“there has been a substantial decline in population”.

I thank Ms Grant for working with the Government on that amendment.

I cannot, however, support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 7, which would take those requirements further, with detailed timeframes for the “maps ... and descriptive matter”. Before we go too far down the track of including such detail in legislation, there needs to be fuller debate on how best to support our rural communities. Unfortunately, amendment 7 runs ahead of that, so I cannot support it.

I am not convinced by Mr Rowley’s amendments 174A and 174E. I find it hard to envisage the Scottish ministers wanting to adopt a national planning framework that is “not compatible with” their wider policy areas, so I cannot see much practical benefit from the amendments and, because I do not want to add unnecessary procedures, I do not support them.

Proposed new section 3ZAC of the 1997 act also brings together requirements for consultation in preparing the framework, including the requirement for a participation statement. Among those who must be consulted is the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change. Amendment 36 will remove a fuller set of requirements that was introduced by Monica Lennon at stage 2. To be absolutely clear, this is not a watering down of climate change requirements—I propose including this as a high-level outcome for the framework. As agreed with the Committee on Climate Change, amendment 174 provides a much more practical, flexible and effective approach that will avoid extra costs and delays.

There is a requirement

“to involve the public at large in the consultation”,

and

“persons or bodies ... that have a role in the delivery of the outcomes”

that are listed in amendment 173. That will overturn more detailed requirements to consult particular officers or groups of people.

My amendments do not propose to change any of the matters on which Scottish ministers may direct planning authorities to provide information to assist in the preparation of the NPF under proposed new section 3AA of the 1997 act. All the stage 2 changes to that list will remain as they are.

I move amendment 19.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

My amendment 186 relates to the content of the national planning framework and requires an assessment

“of each proposed national development’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions”

and their impact on achieving our national emissions reduction targets.

My amendment 219 defines “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” as those that are “associated with” a development’s “construction, operation, and decommissioning”. It is vital to consider the impact of developments in this holistic way, because lighter construction phases of ultimately heavily emitting projects can be misleading.

I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, and the drafting of amendment 219 comes direct from the minister’s comments at stage 2, which I have taken on board. He said:

“I agree that it would be useful to undertake such an assessment of all the proposed national developments to be included in national planning framework 4 and I would be happy with an amendment in those terms, so that the most significant long-term infrastructure projects ... would be assessed in that way.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 31 October 2018; c 25.]

Parliament this morning agreed, at stage 2 of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, to set a target of net zero emissions by 2045. That means that we all need to invest in developments that will serve us well into the future. We have a climate emergency, so the duty on the Scottish ministers properly to future proof national developments is absolutely vital, so I am delighted that the minister has accepted amendment 186.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

I will speak to amendments 187, 7, 174C and 174D. Most of my amendments to the bill cover declining populations in rural areas. As this is the first time that I have spoken during consideration of amendments, I will take a little time to point out why that issue is of concern and why we should remedy it.

I was brought up in Wester Ross, so I am painfully aware that population decline poses a real threat to the very existence of many rural communities, and not just in the Highlands and Islands but throughout Scotland. Of course, there is much to celebrate in what our rural areas contribute to Scotland, including spectacular landscapes and natural heritage that draw visitors from home and abroad. Rural areas are also where most of our food is grown and where most of our carbon is sequestrated. Rural Scotland is important to the whole of Scotland.

Recent research by the James Hutton Institute paints a grim picture of the future for Scotland’s sparsely populated areas. The report’s key finding is that those areas

“have a demographic legacy which, in the absence of intervention, will result in decades of population decline, and shrinkage of its working age population, on a scale which implies serious challenges for economic development, and consequences for its landscape and ecology which are poorly understood.”

The report also states that we risk losing more than a quarter of the population from such areas by 2046, which will threaten the very existence of the communities there.

When I spoke to amendments that I lodged at stage 2, I argued that it is time to give the people dimension of the countryside greater status in developing future planning policy, because people are the life-blood of those places. It was therefore encouraging that my stage 2 amendments on rural repopulation attracted cross-party support.

The challenge is to ensure that Scotland’s planning system facilitates rural repopulation that balances sustainable economic development with protection of our landscapes and natural heritage. The amendments that I have lodged for stage 3 are intended to help the planning system to do precisely that.

Amendment 187 would enhance the national planning framework’s content by allowing for the production of

“maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter ... of rural areas”

where

“there has been a substantial decline in population”.

That would provide useful indications of places where rural repopulation might be desirable and feasible.

Amendment 7 would serve the same purpose in relation to assisting in the preparation of the national planning framework’s content, but it would provide more focus on the timeframe to which such material should relate, and it specifically indicates that the produced material may relate to areas that “are no longer inhabited”. However, given the minister’s constructive comments and support for my other amendments, I am minded not to move amendment 7, when the time comes.

Amendments 174C and 174D would reinforce the fact that the bill is concerned with a land use planning system. The amendments would ensure that the Scottish ministers, in revising the national planning framework, must have regard to

“any land rights and responsibilities statement”

and

“any national strategy or action plan for the ownership or use of land”

that they have prepared. That would complement the other strategies and policies that are listed in the bill and emphasise the cross-cutting significance of land reform to development of the planning system.

Alex Rowley

Barring some fairly glaring and notable omissions, which I will come on to, the Government has done an effective job of building into the bill the diverse and important set of principles that were raised at stage 2. It is welcome that the national planning framework will include statements on meeting the housing needs of people in Scotland, including older and disabled people, and on improving health and wellbeing. Labour members, in particular Monica Lennon, have argued throughout the passage of the bill that public health and reducing health inequality must be at the heart of our planning system. It is also welcome that there will be statements on meeting emissions reduction targets and on increasing the population of rural areas in Scotland, which is an important issue that Rhoda Grant has raised.

However, equality and non-discrimination is a notable omission from the issues that the national planning framework will address. That was reflected in the Government’s failure to engage adequately with Monica Lennon’s and Andy Wightman’s amendments on gender at stage 2.

The design of Scotland’s urban space and infrastructure has traditionally been based on male need, and so it contributes towards women’s exclusion from public life. The Government has taken a strong line on gender equality, including its acceptance of structural inequality, so it is deeply disappointing that it has not made equality a key outcome of the national planning framework, which is the key expression of its planning policy. I look forward to seeing whether the Government will support Monica Lennon’s amendments on equality and non-discrimination, which we will debate later.

Scottish Labour will support all the amendments in the group apart from amendment 29, which seeks to delete the requirement for the Government to consult the chief medical officer and the chief executive of the national health service. If the Government is serious about spatial planning working to help people’s physical and mental health, it must have an idea of the key challenges and how they differ across Scotland, which will require that it take expert advice.

The combined work that has already been done on planning and public health is a great example of what can be achieved when we stop working in silos and bring together people who have different areas of expertise. However, sometimes time and resources can get in the way of that, so a statutory footing is required in order to make partnership working happen. Here is an opportunity for the Government to embrace that approach, and not to run away from it.

Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

I record my thanks to Kevin Stewart for his constructive discussions and engagement between stages 2 and 3 on air quality and pollution. During those discussions, I was able to raise a number of constituency issues—especially issues that affect the community of Scone, which has faced a number of very illogical planning decisions that will make its air quality worse.

Of course, pollution remains a big killer in Scotland. One of the conclusions of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s inquiry into air quality was that we need to embed consideration of air quality further in the planning system. Amendment 174B would do that by ensuring that the refresh of “Cleaner Air for Scotland: The Road to a Healthier Future”, which is our national strategy on air quality, will have increased weight in the national planning framework. That is a positive step forward. I welcome where we have got to with the bill.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

I welcome amendment 173, in the name of the minister, which will insert into section 1 a new subsection on the national planning framework. It sets out the outcomes to which the NPF would be expected to contribute, and makes specific reference to housing need, and especially to the needs of

“older people and disabled people”.

It also outlines other key outcomes, including improving health and wellbeing, increasing the rural population, meeting climate change targets and securing positive effects for biodiversity.

Amendment 173 will consolidate a number of amendments that I lodged at stage 2. I am pleased that it positions the housing needs of older people and disabled people as a priority. My colleagues on the Local Government and Communities Committee who looked closely at the bill at stage 2 will know that I pressed for that, given that housing has a key role to play in allowing older people and disabled people to live independent, healthy and active lives. Investment in appropriate housing will save resources that would otherwise be spent on health and social care, will help to tackle loneliness and isolation, and will contribute to improved health and wellbeing.

A number of housing challenges arise from Scotland’s rapidly ageing population, which underlines the need to invest in housing for older people and disabled people. There is therefore a pressing requirement to ensure that their housing needs are explicitly recognised in the planning system. Amendment 173 would mean that, under proposed new section 3A(3)(ba) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, ministers would be required to include in the NPF a statement about how such outcomes would be achieved. That would help to guarantee that the Scottish Government would be held to account on its delivery of key outcomes, including meeting the housing needs of older people and disabled people.

Given the terms of the proposed new subsection that amendment 173 would insert, amendment 21 would remove the change that was made by my amendment 16, which I lodged at stage 2, which would require the NPF to set out what the Scottish ministers consider to be the priorities for housing that is suitable for older people and disabled people and for meeting those needs. That amendment is no longer necessary because housing for such people will be included as a high-level outcome of the NPF.

Similarly, amendment 25 will remove section 1(2F) of the amended bill—which was inserted by my amendment 168 at stage 2—which required the Government to set national targets for housing that is suitable for older people and disabled people, and to report on consultation.

Amendment 173 supersedes the need for that provision, removal of which resolves issues to do with definitions and requirements that would make national targets unhelpful.

Overall, the amendments in the group will ensure that providing housing for older and disabled people is a policy principle for development plans nationally and locally, while avoiding the duplication that would arise from multiple amendments that seek similar outcomes, and ensuring that terminology is used consistently throughout the bill. I am therefore happy to support amendment 173.

15:45

Andy Wightman

Greens were pleased to see the amendments that the minister has lodged, and we agree with them all, bar one. They will streamline and consolidate a range of policy changes that were agreed to at stage 2. Like Alex Rowley, however, we will oppose amendment 29. The fact that the chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS Scotland happen to be members of staff of the Scottish Government does not remove the value of their being consulted.

We also welcome Alex Rowley’s amendments 174A and 174B, because they will improve accountability and alignment with the matters that are covered in proposed new section 3ZAC of the 1997 act, which will be introduced by amendment 174.

Although we are sympathetic to the intention behind Rhoda Grant’s amendments 174C and 174D, we will not support them. In our view, the land rights and responsibilities statement is not relevant to the planning system, and neither is

“any national strategy ... for the ownership of land”.

The ownership and occupation of land are not matters for the planning system per se, and use of land is already covered by proposed new section 3ZAC(3)(a)(v) of the 1997 act, which will be inserted by amendment 174.

We will, however, support Rhoda Grant’s other amendments.

Graham Simpson

There is no doubt that after stage 2, the bill was—to use the minister’s word—a bit of a “guddle”, and it certainly needed to be tidied up. Fortunately, the Government took on that work, so I praise the minister for doing a good job in the group of amendments that we are discussing.

I will touch on a few areas. Kenny Gibson mentioned amendment 173, which is on meeting the housing needs of older and disabled people. That subject was inserted at stage 2. A number of members of the committee felt that it was very important, so I am delighted that it will be in the eventual act—as long as the bill is passed, of course.

I also welcome Kevin Stewart’s amendment 28, which sets out a clear definition of biodiversity. I am glad that he has recognised the importance of biodiversity, which was the subject of an amendment of mine at stage 2. That is good.

I also praise Mark Ruskell, who attempted to get something on air quality into the bill at stage 2. It was not agreed to, but he went away and improved his proposal, so the Conservatives can certainly support it at stage 3.

The Presiding Officer

I call on the minister to wind up on the group and then to press amendment 19.

Kevin Stewart

I will be very brief, Presiding Officer. I thank all members who have engaged to improve this part of the bill. Many folks have come through my door, and at the end of that we have amendments that are much better than the original ones.

I will touch on what Mr Rowley and Mr Wightman said about a requirement to consult the chief medical officer and why we have taken that out. The reason is simple: it would not be appropriate for the Scottish ministers to consult Scottish Government officials on a Scottish Government policy. It is also a very narrow provision and, in practice, the participation statement covers everyone. I hope that that leads to some understanding on the issue.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Amendment 186 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Amendments 20 and 21 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 173 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question on amendment 173 will be put after consideration of the next group, as it may be amended by amendment 173B.

Group 3 is on consideration of equalities issues. Amendment 173B, in the name of Monica Lennon, is grouped with amendments 189, 190 and 183A. I remind members that, if amendment 33 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 189 and 190, as they will be pre-empted.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Amendment 173B is intended to add

“improving equality and eliminating discrimination”

to the national planning framework outcomes. Amendments 189 and 190 seek to require the Government to produce guidance on equalities in planning. Amendment 183A seeks to make promoting equalities and supporting planning authorities to embed equalities in practice part of the role of the improvement co-ordinator.

I draw members’ attention to the briefing that has been circulated by Engender, which calls on MSPs to back these amendments to ensure that the planning system works for women. I believe that the Planning (Scotland) Bill presents a unique opportunity to make communities across Scotland more equal. Spatial planning at its best understands and responds to the different needs that people have in our public places and spaces. Currently, however, none of the Scottish Government’s documents on planning strategy refers to gender or women, in spite of some very good national commitments to gender equality in the national performance framework and the inclusive growth pillar of the Government’s economic strategy. That is disappointing.

Achieving those goals depends on proactive steps being taken across policy areas by both national and local government. Gender equality must be mainstreamed through planning policy, strategy and decision-making processes. Inequalities are baked into our built environment and shape our patterns of movement. For women, how we move in our society is affected by the inequalities that we face. For example, around two thirds of unpaid care work is carried out by women, and unpaid caring can tie women to residential areas where there are services and amenities linked to their caring and household roles. However, jobs—especially those that pay higher wages—tend to be further away from residential areas, which makes it difficult or, at worst, impossible for many women to access them. The concentration of jobs away from residential areas means that women spend more time and money than they can afford on travel, and some simply cannot afford to be part of the labour market. Planning cannot be just a paper or plan-based technical exercise; it has to be about getting the best outcomes for people.

Members may ask what violence against women has to do with the planning process. Violence against women persists in Scotland, and we have to root it out. How we plan our communities can make real practical improvements to the experiences that women face, and how we design in safety and build inclusive public spaces is really important. Things such as lighting and the spaces between buildings matter. I have talked about caring and how the burden still tends to rest with women, so access for wheelchairs and pushchairs is important.

All those things are planning issues. As Alex Rowley stated in speaking to amendments in the previous group, the Government has taken a strong line on gender inequality but, sadly, structural inequality still persists. From listening to evidence at stage 2, I picked up that some of the planning authorities do not see that they have a role in this area and that gender equality is not front and centre when they are looking at planning policy and making decisions.

I say that in the context of the diminishing resources that planning authorities find themselves working with. We need the proposed guidance, and the role of the improvement co-ordinator will be crucial in ensuring that planning authorities have the necessary tools and support to bring about real, meaningful change for women and to support diversity and inclusion in all our communities.

I believe that the amendments are proportionate and practical and will make a positive difference. Indeed, Engender has said that, without them, the bill will not deliver improvements to a process that has failed to adequately consider women’s needs or make progress towards gender equality. Let us not miss this opportunity. I ask colleagues to support amendments 173B, 189, 190 and 183A.

I move amendment 173B.

Andy Wightman

I will make just a few brief comments on these amendments. I commend Monica Lennon for persisting with a topic that we had extensive discussions about at stage 2. There are many examples of countries, such as Sweden and Austria, that have highlighted the highly gendered nature of land use and planning. We have a lot of work to do on the topic, and I hope that, if these amendments are agreed to, it will be the beginning of a new chapter in planning.

Graham Simpson

I strongly urge Monica Lennon not to move amendment 183A, which relates to the national planning improvement co-ordinator. We will come to that issue later, but there have been a lot of discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the matter and it is now in a happier place with amendment 183. Frankly, if amendment 183A were to be agreed to, it would open up a hornet’s nest.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to support Monica Lennon’s amendment 173B, which seeks to insert the additional outcome of

“improving equality and eliminating discrimination”

into the national planning framework.

However, I am not able to support her amendments 189 and 190. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published technical guidance on how to apply the public sector equality duty, including on collection of evidence, instigation of research or consultation, if appropriate, and consideration of mitigating actions. That is the commission’s responsibility—it is not the role of ministers. However, I assure Ms Lennon that, in preparing the national planning framework and statutory guidance on effective community engagement, we will take account of and draw attention to the commission’s guidance.

Andy Wightman

I understand what the minister says about the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but it is, as it were, a kind of side body. Planning decisions are being made week in, month out in Scotland that promote the interests of men—who, for example, predominantly drive cars—so we need to have the proposed approach at the heart of the planning system.

Kevin Stewart

I am quite sure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not see itself as a side body, and neither do I.

I cannot support amendment 183A, on the role of the planning improvement co-ordinator. As we will see later, we have not proposed to set out any detail of the co-ordinator’s functions on the face of the bill. Instead, we will work collaboratively with stakeholders to develop the role and to determine the detailed functions that are to be set out in regulations. We consider that the co-ordinator should consider the range of functions that an authority exercises and that the role should be developed in collaboration with stakeholders. Although we envisage equalities functions being included, setting out specific subjects at this stage would pre-empt that collaborative approach.

I support amendment 173B, but I ask Ms Lennon not to move her other amendments in the group.

Monica Lennon

I will press amendment 173B and move the other amendments in the group.

One of the issues raised by Engender, particularly in evidence at stage 2, is that the approach to gender inequalities is one of the weakest aspects of the bill. At committee, I asked the minister several times about the dialogue and engagement that he had had. I have to say that I do not really understand the resistance to embedding equality into every part of the planning system. Andy Wightman is correct to talk about countries across Europe and elsewhere that do that sort of thing really well—indeed, we heard some evidence on that.

I am not sure about the hornet’s nest that Graham Simpson is concerned about. There does not need to be any conflict over this. If we really want to get planning right for everyone, we can find a way of doing so.

16:00

Although I am grateful to the minister for the partial support that he has offered, it will be disappointing if these amendments are rejected, particularly if we reflect on the fact that Engender is saying to MSPs that they would be a positive step. All the good work that the Scottish Government is doing on gender equality will be diminished if the Parliament rejects these amendments today.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 173B be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 91, Against 30, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 173B agreed to.

Amendment 173, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 23 to 26 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

I propose to put the question on all four amendments together. Does anyone object?

Members: Yes.

The Presiding Officer

I will put the questions individually.

Amendments 23 and 24 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 97, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Amendment 187 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 7 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on national scenic area consultations and reports. Amendment 188, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 11 and 206.

Rhoda Grant

A research report on community empowerment and landscape that was published last year by Community Land Scotland and the Institute for Heritage and Sustainable Human Development identified a participation gap that is experienced by communities in getting their voices heard in the process of applying landscape designations relating to historical and natural heritage. Ensuring that communities’ views are not airbrushed from those landscape designation processes is vital, and the amendments seek to address that gap as it applies to national scenic areas, which are the only relevant designations in the scope of the planning system.

Amendment 188 would ensure that ministers, when preparing the national planning framework,

“must have due regard to any National Scenic Areas report published by them”.

Amendment 11 specifies who should be consulted in relation to any proposed new national scenic area designation and includes any person

“resident within, or adjacent to, the area of a proposed designation”

and

“a community body (as defined by section 4(9) of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015) with an interest in the land of a proposed designation”.

Amendment 206 requires ministers to

“publish a report on the consultation undertaken in regard to the designation”

of any new national scenic area as soon as is practicable after the year of designation. The report must include

“the ways in which the views”

“any person consulted ... were taken into account”,

and

“how ... Ministers intend to improve their consultation process before issuing”

any future such directions.

I move amendment 188.

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 116, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Kevin Stewart

At stage 2, there was great interest in the content of the national planning framework and the procedures for preparing it. In particular, Graham Simpson made significant changes to the procedures for preparing and approving the framework. My amendments do not seek to change those procedures significantly. For example, I accept that there will be benefit in giving the Parliament the power to approve the framework before the Scottish ministers can adopt it.

However, there is a need to tidy up the provisions so that the process runs smoothly. The amendments in this group aim to consolidate the changes that were made at stage 2. I will address the significant amendments and not dwell on those that simply rearrange, reword and tidy up the provisions. Most of the amendments in the group are technical and consequential and do not make notable changes.

At stage 2, it was clear that the committee wanted more attention to be given to housing for older people and disabled people. Some of my amendments remove some of the detailed requirements that were added. Amendment 32, for example, removes detailed consultation requirements associated with the topic, as that would be addressed in the NPF participation statement. The issue is addressed instead by other amendments—some that I have already covered in group 2 and others that I will speak to in group 7.

Amendment 34 tidies up the timing of the duty to review the national planning framework. It sets out a 10-year review timescale and carries forward existing arrangements that allow Scottish ministers either to review the framework or to publish an explanation of why they have decided not to revise it. Amendment 49 removes extensive provisions on data protection that were inserted by Graham Simpson’s stage 2 amendments. Those provisions are not needed, as appropriate requirements are already set by wider legislation.

Amendment 51 requires the Scottish ministers to publish the national planning framework as soon as practical following adoption.

Amendment 52 requires the key agencies to co-operate with the Scottish ministers in the preparation, review and amendment of the national planning framework.

To summarise, the amendments, together, will ensure that provisions relating to the national planning framework are practical and easy to follow. I ask members to support all the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 30.

The Presiding Officer

I hope that I did not speak too soon earlier, because no one else wishes to speak on this group. However, there are a number of votes, which might take some time.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

16:15

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

I definitely spoke too soon. There will be a division. I need to call members back. This is a one-minute division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

I apologise to members who have had to run back to the chamber. I was trying to be helpful to members—[Laughter.] What I said was clearly very unhelpful. Members will be relieved to hear that it was not a close vote.

Group 6 is on open space strategy. Amendment 115, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 116 and 152.

Kevin Stewart

The new duty to prepare open space strategies under section 1A of the bill was introduced by Mr Wightman. Following my remarks at stage 2, he said that he would be happy to consider further amendments at stage 3 to simplify the statutory requirements and provide more flexibility. My amendments 115, 116 and 152 seek to do that.

Amendment 115 seeks to remove from primary legislation the detailed requirements of what an open space audit has to record. Amendment 116 provides instead that regulations can make provision for how planning authorities are to discharge their functions in relation to open space strategies, including how they conduct an audit and assess current and future requirements for open space.

I believe that it is more appropriate to include that level of detail in secondary legislation. That will provide us with the time to engage with stakeholders and set out an informed, practical and proportionate approach—for example, around how planning authorities can record the level of use and the condition of open space and assess future open space requirements impartially and consistently.

The bill’s definitions of “green infrastructure” and “green networks” differ from those that are currently in Scottish planning policy. At this stage, I have not sought to align the definitions, given that we will shortly embark on a wider policy review that will offer lots of opportunity for engagement and in which stakeholders can raise comments on the definitions or highlight new drivers that should be reflected.

Amendment 116 allows ministers to amend the definitions through regulations, should that be necessary. Since those regulations will be able to amend primary legislation, they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 152 will achieve that while also meeting the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s requests after stage 2 that section 275 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 should be tidied up.

I ask the Parliament to support this group of amendments.

I move amendment 115.

Andy Wightman

I thank the minister for taking forward further work on these matters since stage 2. Open space strategies have been an important part of the planning system and are in place in the vast majority of planning authorities—at present, under guidance only. The amendments put them on a statutory footing, which I hope will be welcome.

The Presiding Officer

Does the minister wish to add anything?

Kevin Stewart

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 115 agreed to.

Amendment 116 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 1B—Housing needs of older people and disabled people: parliamentary report

The Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on the housing needs of older people and disabled people and the requirement for a report to the Parliament. Amendment 53, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Kevin Stewart

I will move amendment 53, but only to allow the matter to which it relates to be debated. I do not intend to press the amendment.

The amendment sought to remove a requirement for ministers to consult and report every two years on the housing needs of older and disabled people. I agree that those needs are very important and that we should monitor progress in meeting them. However, I did not consider the report to be necessary, given the requirements that address the matter that our consolidating amendments have built into provisions for the national planning framework and local development plans.

I lodged my amendments well in advance of stage 3 to allow discussion with members. I have listened to what people said, and I fully agree that we should be planning now to ensure that we meet the future needs of our population. There is no doubt that the needs of older and disabled people will be a significant issue for the national planning framework and local development plans to tackle in the new system.

The provisions include some very bureaucratic and complex procedural requirements; subsection 1B(3) is particularly wide in scope. I am happy to work with officials to try to meet those requirements and to produce the reports.

I move amendment 53.

Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)

I thank the minister for not pressing amendment 53 in his name. The approach in section 1B, which was proposed by my colleague Alexander Stewart, helpfully gives Parliament some scrutiny over where we are going, particularly around older people and those with disabilities.

Age Scotland in particular was concerned that if section 1B was not included there would be no future proofing by Parliament. I thank the minister for listening, not only to MSPs but to others outside the Parliament. I think that the bill as it stands—and as I hope that it will be enacted in due course—will strengthen what we all seek to do: to future proof housing needs, especially for the most vulnerable in our society.

16:30

Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

I thank the minister for the time that he has given not just to MSPs but to other groups. I am the convener of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, and there were concerns about older people and people with disabilities. I am pleased that the minister listened to those concerns. There is still a lot of work to be done, but I am sure that we will all roll up our sleeves and get on with it. I cannot thank the minister enough for listening to us all and not pressing amendment 53.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

I am delighted that the minister has seen fit not to press amendment 53 and to support Age Scotland’s proposals. The factors that underline the need to invest in housing for older people and address the investment issues will save resources, which can be spent on health and social care, help to tackle loneliness and isolation, and contribute to the greater health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Addressing that issue will require strategic action at the national level through the national planning framework and, at local level, through local development plans and local place plans. I very much support that.

The Presiding Officer

The minister does not wish to press amendment 53. Does any member wish to press it?

Members: No.

Amendment 53, by agreement, withdrawn.

After section 1B

The Presiding Officer

Group 8 is on an account of decline in population. Amendment 9, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.

Rhoda Grant

Amendment 9 seeks to assist in the preparation of policies and proposals for the development and use of land by enabling ministers to prepare an account of areas in which there has been substantial decline in population since 1700.

Kevin Stewart

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I cannot hear Ms Grant and I think that I should be able to hear her so that I can respond accordingly.

The Presiding Officer

Ms Grant, make sure that your microphone is pointing straight at you. We will try to turn the sound up.

Rhoda Grant

Amendment 9 also enables ministers to specify the meaning of “substantial decline” by way of regulations and to consult persons with appropriate experience or knowledge in preparing the account.

The period since 1700 includes the time of the notorious Highland clearances—a shameful stain on Scotland’s past, which is still felt keenly in my constituency and indeed by politicians and parties across the chamber. Support for amendment 9 would allow the lasting effects of those notorious events to be accounted for as we move forward towards a hopefully more progressive and sustainable future, for both the Highlands and Scotland as a whole. Hopefully, that will lead to future generations seeing lights on in those empty glens again. I look forward to support from other parties across the chamber for my amendment.

I move amendment 9.

Andy Wightman

This is an important amendment. We know from forecasts, and indeed our own history, that certain parts of Scotland have historically been depopulated. Some parts remain at substantial risk of losing further population. In our view, that is a matter that properly requires a focus in national planning on topics such as infrastructure. The Scottish Greens will support amendment 9.

Kevin Stewart

Amendment 9 reflects a broader debate that we have had during consideration of the bill on previously populated rural areas. As I made clear at stage 2, I fully support the principle, and a number of relevant requirements will now be included in the bill.

However, I cannot support amendment 9, because drawing up such an account could be an extensive, time-consuming and costly exercise. That would be disproportionate and would add little value. The areas that have been depopulated since 1700 might not necessarily be the areas in which people want to live now. The principle of supporting rural resettlement is already embedded in provisions for both the national planning framework and local development plans. I believe that that is the best way to approach the issue.

I will continue to work with Ms Grant and others on those issues, as we have done during the passage of the bill, but I urge Ms Grant not to press amendment 9, because of the cost.

Rhoda Grant

I am disappointed that the minister has not seen fit to support amendment 9. The amendment says that the account would be

“for the purpose of explaining or illustrating”

the policies of the Scottish Government and its

“proposal for the development and use of land”.

The account would be required only when the Government has policies and proposals for the development and use of land. It would also be for the Government to

“specify the meaning of ‘substantial decline’”.

Group 9 is on strategic development and regional spatial strategies. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 55, 56 and 106 to 110.

Kevin Stewart

These amendments set out a new approach to strategic planning in Scotland.

Amendment 54 introduces a new duty for an authority, or authorities working together,

“to prepare and adopt a regional spatial strategy”.

This should be a long-term spatial strategy that addresses the need, outcomes and priorities for strategic development and the proposed locations of that development

“in the form of a map or diagram”.

Arrangements for publication of and consultation on regional spatial strategies have been designed to be deliberately flexible to allow authorities to decide appropriate arrangements for themselves.

Amendment 54 clarifies that both the national planning framework and local development plans are to “have regard to” regional spatial strategies, which would act as a strong but flexible bridge between national and local planning.

The provisions in amendment 54 enable Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority or authorities to prepare and adopt, or to review, a regional spatial strategy. Where such a direction is made, authorities must co-operate with one another.

Amendment 54 also allows ministers to issue guidance on

“the preparation, adoption, review and content of regional spatial strategies.”

That will be a priority for us as we take forward planning reform and consider the role of strategic planning in the forthcoming review of the NPF.

Amendments 55, 56 and 106 to 110 are consequential amendments removing provisions relating to strategic development plans.

It is fair to say that it has taken some time to find the right solution in relation to strategic planning. I confess that I have been rather direct in previous debates about the shortcomings of existing arrangements for strategic planning, but I have had to do that to ensure that people understand the importance of change in this area.

I believe that these amendments strike a good balance by ensuring that not only is there a clear duty, but that the detailed arrangements are flexible and can respond to local circumstances. They will deliver on our original aim to modernise strategic planning so that it can unlock the potential of planning and guide our long-term development in a way that can better respond to evolving relationships on a regional scale.

A new approach to strategic planning is a critically important part of our reforms. I have worked hard to ensure that the concerns of the committee and of stakeholders have been addressed in these amendments. I am also grateful for the input that we have had from members of the profession. I ask members to support the amendments.

I move amendment 54.

Andy Wightman

In the committee’s stage 1 report, we recommended against removing the current statutory framework of strategic development plans. It is fair to say that views on that were mixed, but we took the view that in the absence of compelling evidence to get rid of them, it was best to keep them. However, we were clear that we were open minded about alternatives.

The Greens took the view that any replacement needs to be flexible and enable planning authorities’ agency and autonomy, and it should be universal and have meaningful status in the planning system.

What the minister proposed at stage 2 did not meet any of those tests, so those amendments were rejected. However, I am pleased to see the proposed amendment on regional spatial strategies. Although they will not form part of the development plan, we believe that the strategies will be flexible enough to enable planning authorities across Scotland to collaborate with each other in whatever manner they see fit, whether that be in relation to water catchment level plans, transportation or infrastructure. We welcome amendment 54 and we think that it will be helpful for the planning system. We will be supporting all the amendments in the group.

Alex Rowley

The removal of strategic development planning authorities with no adequate replacement in the first draft of the bill was indicative of a Government that has an impulse to centralise and has failed to recognise the creative and effective work that is being done at the local level.

Ministers are not best placed to identify the key regional planning priorities in different areas. That responsibility should lie with those who know their areas best, and the strategic development planning authorities have done a job in that regard. For example, the local authorities involved in Clydeplan have praised the contribution that regional planning has made to regeneration and economic growth in the Glasgow city region. Clydeplan demonstrates the brilliant work that can be done by well-resourced regional planning that has the backing of all partners.

Given the stark lack of recognition that the SDPAs received from the Government at stage 1, I thank them for the excellent work that they have done. That work can be recreated only in a political environment in which regional planning and the role of local planning authorities in the process are valued. The Government’s introduction of a strategic planning duty, which was made possible as a result of pressure from the Opposition parties, is welcome. However, as I will say throughout this week’s discussions, planning authorities must be properly resourced if they are to be able to fulfil their duties.

RTPI Scotland told the committee:

Staffing levels in the four dedicated strategic development plan teams are down by 60 per cent, and only eight full-time chartered planners are working across the four strategic planning areas. That is not good enough. We cannot expect regional planning to do the groundbreaking and creative work that it needs and has the potential to do to support our local economies while it is working under that kind of resource pressure. The Government needs to get real and realise that a world-class planning system must be properly resourced.

Graham Simpson

When the bill was introduced, section 2 proposed to remove the requirement to prepare strategic development plans. The Government said that that would save time and money and that the plans had become too prescriptive, overly complex, costly and lengthy to produce. However, the committee agreed that views on the proposal were mixed. We concluded that

“To the extent that there is support, it is contingent on a commitment to continue with some form of regional spatial planning”.

Section 2 of the bill as introduced would have removed altogether the requirement for SDPs to be prepared, without providing an alternative. The committee heard no strong evidence that getting rid of regional partnerships was necessary. In fact, as we have seen with city and growth deals, regional working is the way to deliver strong growth. The committee said that things should be left as they are unless something better was proposed.

Andy Wightman introduced an amendment at stage 2 that basically kept strategic development plans. Throughout the passage of the bill, we have maintained our position that if SDPs are to be removed, there needs to be a viable replacement. The Government’s amendments 54 and 55 introduce the idea of regional spatial strategies. Amendment 54 states:

“A planning authority, or two or more such authorities acting jointly, are to prepare and adopt a regional spatial strategy.”

In other words, we are saying, “You must have one, but we’re not going to be prescriptive about it.” Some of our councils cover enormous areas. Highland is perhaps the best example, and we might think it odd if Highland were told to link up with another council to produce a regional strategy when it is in effect a region in itself. Under the proposal, it will not have to do so.

The proposals keep regional working, but with flexibility, and we can support that. We have argued that regions can be the engines of growth, and we know that to be true. Delivering growth is an important role for the planning system. Rather than the sweeping destruction of regional working that we could have faced, the proposals are an important step towards getting Scotland’s economy back on track, so we will support all the amendments in the group.

17:00

Kevin Stewart

I will not rehearse all the previous arguments on strategic development plans, because we have already done so on many an occasion. However, I will say that regional spatial strategies are more agile and better able to reflect and align with wider regional partnerships—for example, those relating to the economy, city deals and transport. Unlike the previous strategic development plans, they also cover all areas of Scotland, which recognises that strategic issues do not arise only in our city regions.

I urge members to support the amendments in the group.

Amendment 54 agreed to.

Amendment 55 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 2A—Evidence report for preparation of strategic development plan

Amendment 56 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Local development plans

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 10, which is on local development plans. Amendment 57, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 58 to 64, 191, 65 to 68, 68B, 69 to 73, 192, 74, 193, 75 to 84 and 86 to 97.

Kevin Stewart

Local development plans have a crucial role to play in a plan-led system. It is important that we get such provisions absolutely spot on. Section 3 has become one of the most confusing sections of the bill as a result of the many stage 2 amendments. I have taken on board the many priorities that members wanted to see covered by local development plans. However, I also want to restore clarity to the form and content of local development plans and reduce duplication.

As was the case with group 2, which was on the national planning framework, many of the amendments in group 10 are purely technical; I will speak only to the more substantive ones. Again, I hope that members have seen the proposed amended version of the 1997 act, which will allow them to see how the amendments would fit together.

Amendments 57 and 92 remove requirements for local development plans outwith the areas of strategic development plans to address cross-boundary issues. Those are unnecessary, given the amendments that I have already set out—which Parliament has agreed—in group 9.

Several amendments bring order to the crucial matter of housing in local development plans. Amendment 59 ensures that plans include targets for meeting the housing needs of all people who live in an area. Amendment 60 removes detailed specifications on what the targets should include, as they were too narrowly defined. However, amendment 67 incorporates the specific requirement for the targets to include the needs of students, older people and disabled people.

Amendment 68 requires plans to address the availability in a district of land for housing, consolidating stage 2 amendments that were removed by amendment 76. I am happy to support amendment 68B, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, to ensure that housing for older people and for disabled people is addressed as part of that approach.

Amendment 83 further requires plans to set out a summary of the action taken by an authority to support and promote the construction and adaptation of housing for older people and disabled people, including analysis of the extent to which it meets their needs. Other amendments remove duplication in that regard.

In recognition of the importance of supporting the accommodation needs of Gypsy Travellers, amendments 84, 94 and 96 insert a requirement for authorities to include a summary of action taken and the extent to which such needs have been met.

Amendment 64 removes the requirement for the plan to include a list of sites for self-build housing. In group 12, we will discuss an alternative approach to self-build.

At stage 2, a number of references were inserted to address the repopulation of rural areas. Rhoda Grant’s amendment 191 would require plans to include

“maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter”

to support that. Section 15(4) of the 1997 act already provides for the inclusion of maps and diagrams in general, so I see no need for amendment 191 and I ask Ms Grant not to move it.

Planning has an important role to play in supporting health, and several amendments support but rearrange the requirements in that area for practical reasons. Plans will be required to plan for health infrastructure, manage the effects of development on health and take into account the health needs of people who live in the plan area. I hope that Monica Lennon will agree that those amendments will meet her aims.

Alex Rowley’s amendments 192 and 193 seek to ensure that education is taken into account in local development plans. I agree that that is essential, but his amendments duplicate the requirement for education facilities to be considered alongside other infrastructure under section 15(5) of the 1997 act. I see no need for that duplication, and I ask Mr Rowley not to move his amendments.

Amendments 83 and 61 adjust John Finnie’s stage 2 amendments on disused railway infrastructure so that the matter will sit under section 16(2) of the 1997 act.

Amendments 88, 89, 95 and 97 rearrange the requirements for engagement with community councils and disabled people, requiring the evidence report to set out how they have been involved.

Amendments 82 and 91 remove duplicating requirements on the participation of children and young people; I stress that they do not water down the intention. I have spoken many times about the importance of involving children and young people in planning. Proposed new section 16ZA of the 1997 act, which is removed from the bill by amendment 82, is worded in such a way that there is no clear requirement on authorities to engage with children and young people. A clearer requirement is included in proposed new sections 16A(1A) and 16A(2A) of the 1997 act. In any case, participation statements will have to set out how all people will be involved, and statutory guidance on effective community engagement will promote a more inclusive approach.

We have put a lot of work into rationalising the provisions on local development plans. None of the policy principles has been lost, but it is important that planning authorities and others have a clear and logical set of requirements that they can apply in practice.

I ask members to support all my amendments in the group and Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 68B.

I move amendment 57.

Rhoda Grant

Amendment 191 was designed to assist planning authorities in preparing the content of their local development plans by enabling them to include

“maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter”

relating to rural areas in their districts in which there has been a substantial decline in population. Its purpose is to assist them in the preparation of local development plans by providing useful indications of where rural repopulation may be both desirable and feasible. Given the minister’s assurance that that is already provided for in legislation and that such material would be prepared, I do not intend to move amendment 191.

Jeremy Balfour

I will keep my remarks very short. I am grateful to the minister for accepting my amendment 68B, which seeks to amend his amendment 68. I refer to my earlier comment that older people and those with disabilities need to be considered. I hope that the whole Parliament will agree to both amendments.

Alex Rowley

Amendment 192 adds the education needs of the population of the district and the likely effects of the development and use of land on those needs, and amendment 193 adds the capacity of education services in the district, to the matters to be considered in the local development plan.

It is important to recognise the work that has been done by the Government’s team to capture some of the key themes that emerged during stage 2 and to incorporate them in the bill. We will be supporting the majority of the amendments in this group, but we encourage members to vote against the following amendments.

Amendment 64 deletes the requirement for local authorities to make a statement on how the local development plan will impact on health in the region. We believe that a requirement on planning authorities to take health into account as part of the local development plan is a step forward. However, it is not a substitute for the transparency, accountability and ability to share and learn that come from a statement on what will change. There is so much scope for what that could include—for example, it could include active travel, green space, leisure facilities and community spaces.

Amendment 82 deletes plans for meaningful consultation with young people. Despite promises that were made in 2006, the problem of a lack of community engagement in the planning system has endured. The Government’s review concluded that the front loading of consultation has not worked. For example, in oral evidence to the committee, the City of Edinburgh Council argued that our limited system of front loading

“has not been enough to generate community trust and confidence in the planning process.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, 18 June 2018; c 78.]

We should seek to open and demystify the planning system and show young people that planning is relevant to them. Of course, that all becomes more difficult when communities have no rights of appeal—but that is an issue that we will come on to.

Engaging young people via their schools, youth councils and the Scottish Youth Parliament provides a way to give a range of young people an insight into planning and a stake in their local communities that will endure into the future, and which may even bring a more diverse range of voices into the local place planning process.

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has stated:

“We are disappointed that Amendment 82 seeks to remove the obligation on local authorities meaningfully to involve children when preparing their Local Development Plan.

Children and young people engage extensively with the built environment throughout their lives in their communities. It is fundamental to take account of children and young people’s views, best interests and needs to ensure that public bodies’ decisions both advance their rights and prevent a negative impact on them.

The Scottish Government has committed to the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into Scots Law before the end of this Parliament. One of the core principles of the UNCRC is the right of children to express their views in all matters affecting them (article 12).

Putting the views of children at the core of the planning system, when Local Development Plans are prepared, will ensure not only that their rights are realised. Children are the experts in how they live their lives and experience their environment, they can provide invaluable input into Local Development Plans that no one else can.”

As I said, amendments 192 and 193 would add to the matters that should be considered as part of the local development plan the education needs of the population and the capacity of education services in the district. That approach would introduce consistency with the national planning framework and establish the strong links between development and the capacity of education services. When land is allocated for housing, there must be certainty both that education services are prepared for any increase in the number of young people in the area and that the Government is made aware of any increased pressures on local schools as a result of planning applications being approved. Surely that would be supported by a thorough understanding of the population’s education needs.

17:15

We acknowledge that access panels do not have a statutory basis and therefore cannot be included in the bill. However, will the minister state on the record that he supports those panels being consulted wherever they exist?

We are satisfied that the Government has reflected the need for housing need to be covered in the local development plan, but it is important to note that the bill will not solve the current accessible housing crisis.

The Government is letting down disabled people; indeed, a recent report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission concluded that disabled people in Scotland are being robbed of their dignity and independence due to a chronic shortage of accessible housing. It found that many disabled people are unable to leave their homes or are being forced to live in a single room because of a lack of suitable housing and long waiting lists for adaptations. Some rely on family members to carry them upstairs or between rooms, and having to cope with such issues every day can lead to a serious deterioration of health, including mental health. The EHRC has said:

“The effect of this cannot be understated. It impacts on every aspect of a disabled person’s life, their ability to participate in family life, to work, to access education and social life”.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations recently reported that funding for adaptations in housing association homes has been frozen for the past seven years and that, in 2018-19, the shortfall between the money awarded and the money required was £7.925 million. On top of making provision for the crisis in the bill, the Government must provide the leadership required to solve it, including building 10 per cent of new houses to accessible home standards.

Andy Wightman

I will be as brief as I can be.

We will support all the amendments in the group, with the following exceptions. On amendment 58, the minister seems to regard the issue as being dealt with in amendments 73 and 75. However, those amendments focus on healthcare and health needs, whereas the text that amendment 58 seeks to remove relates to “health effects of development”, which are a very different matter. That said, we will support amendments 73 and 75.

Amendment 82 seeks to remove provisions that were inserted at stage 2 with regard to the participation of young people. As we consider those provisions to be a valuable addition to the bill, we will vote against their removal. Alex Rowley quoted from the letter that we received from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, whose only observation on this very comprehensive and large bill is that we should not support amendment 82, for the reasons that Alex Rowley highlighted.

Amendment 80 seeks to remove the requirement to take into account the open spaces strategy when preparing a local development plan. We are not persuaded by the arguments that have been made for that. The bill covers other considerations such as disused railway infrastructure, and we cannot see how the open spaces strategy is any less important. We will therefore vote against that amendment, too.

Amendment 87 seeks to remove the provision that was secured by Daniel Johnson at stage 2 for the evidence report to assess the demand for and availability of student housing. As the detailed considerations involved in that matter are not covered by the wider provisions in section 15(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, we think that that particular provision remains useful, and we will therefore vote against its removal.

Pauline McNeill (Glasgow) (Lab)

On amendments 59, 62 and 73, the minister previously said that he wanted to ensure that none of the policy principles was lost. At stage 2, the committee supported an amendment in my name that required an analysis to be made, as part of the local development plan, of the extent to which the use of age and dementia-friendly design had helped to meet the housing needs of older people. As a result, under proposed new section 15(2E)(c) of the 1997 act, there will be

“an estimate of the new housing for older people ... in each year”

and the use of

“age and dementia friendly design in its construction”

so that we can see what progress local authorities are making. I also point out that proposed new section 15(2F) of the 1997 act defines the term

“age and dementia friendly design”

as taking

“into account ... needs, including ... mental health”.

I am sure that I do not need to persuade the Parliament of the importance of ensuring that we build homes that are dementia friendly. Along with Sandra White, who is the convener of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, I wrote a joint letter to the minister about concerns about removing that section of the bill. It also has the support of Age Scotland, which believes that the section is an important safeguard that will ensure that local authorities consider the building of dementia-friendly homes. The Government now proposes that we remove that duty. I would like to hear from the minister, in his summing up, how he thinks that that policy intention will be protected in the bill, given that he is seeking to remove it. If at all possible, I also want assurances that, in removing those provisions, we do not lose the essence of promoting new housing and using dementia-friendly design in constructing our homes.

The Presiding Officer

I invite the minister to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 57.

Kevin Stewart

As I said at the very beginning of my comments, this set of amendments considers the priorities that were put forward, removes duplication and tidies up what was previously in the bill.

I will turn to a few of the points that were made during the debate. I have probably talked more than anyone else about the need to get young people involved in the planning process. That is one of the reasons why, outwith the bill, we are considering digital planning and how we can involve young folk in that. At the moment, we have a pilot scheme at Galashiels academy that is considering the place standard tool. It clearly shows that young folk want things that are very different from the things that the older folk in their communities want. I am keen to ensure that young people are involved at every stage of the process, and amendment 82 seeks to make things much clearer than proposed new section 16ZA of the 1997 act, which it seeks to remove.

I will turn to some of the other things that have been mentioned, particularly about older folk and disabled people. Many members have been very good at speaking to me about what they see as requirements, and we have listened to members as we have moved forward. I see that a number of members around the chamber are nodding. I have spoken to Mr Simpson, Mr Stewart, Mr Balfour and Mr Gibson, who, it has to be said, has been vociferous on the issue. I have also spoken to Sandra White. As I said, my door is always open. If folk have not taken that opportunity, I urge them to do so next time.

Let us consider what we are doing in housing at the moment, because we drifted away from planning a little.

Pauline McNeill

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart

I will, in a little bit.

Of the affordable housing that we delivered in 2017-18, 99 per cent was housing for varying need. On the affordable housing supply programme, I have said—again and again—to local authorities and housing associations that we are more than willing to be flexible with the benchmark moneys to deliver more of that type of housing right across Scotland, and I will continue to do so.

Pauline McNeill

Given that the amendments that I lodged at stage 2 became part of the bill, I simply ask for a response to my question about how the policy will still be contained in the bill if we remove those provisions. The minister has not mentioned the important issue of ensuring that local authorities build dementia-friendly homes.

Kevin Stewart

We will continue to consider the design of homes not only in relation to the bill, the national planning framework and the review of Scottish planning policy, but in relation to the delivery of the affordable supply programme. Beyond that, we will consider design in relation to the review of building standards. I have taken cognisance of the views that were expressed before stage 2 and at stage 2 about the needs of older and disabled people, and I will continue to do so.

I ask members to look at what was put into the bill at stage 2 and at my amendments, which refine what was there before. There has been no watering down of any of the principles that were put into the bill at that point, and I urge members to support my amendments.

Amendment 57 agreed to.

Amendment 58 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 61, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 192 agreed to.

Amendment 74 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 193 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 61, Against 58, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 193 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 11 concerns the protection of cultural venues and music venues. Amendment 175, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, is grouped with amendments 121, 127, 176 to 179, 129, 180, 131 and 182.

Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 175 requires live music and other cultural venues to be considered in local development plans. Indeed, all the amendments in this group revolve around one central issue, which is how to apply the agent of change principle to protect live music venues from the unintended consequences of new development nearby. This is a real and pressing planning issue. Many live music venues have closed in recent years, often because planning permission for a new development has been granted without the developer being required to mitigate the effects of noise from an existing venue, with the costs of mitigation then falling on the venue, which can be put out of business as a result.

The agent of change principle protects venues by making the developer, not the existing venue, responsible for noise mitigation. Many live music venues want agent of change to be given statutory force in the bill. Unfortunately, the Government does not. It would prefer that agent of change be a matter of planning policy, not planning law. The committee made a number of changes to give effect to agent of change at stage 2, but the Government’s amendments today would reverse almost all of those changes.

The minister met me recently to lay out his concerns about the changes that were made at stage 2, and our amendments today are designed precisely to address those concerns. We have offered a way for the Government to retain agent of change without endorsing the idea of culturally significant zones, which it does not support. It can do that by supporting amendments 177 and 178. By contrast, the Government’s amendment 129 would remove not only the idea of culturally significant zones but also the principle of agent of change.

In amendments 176 and 182, we have offered a form of words that puts beyond doubt that ultimate discretion lies with planning authorities, even where developers have failed to make reasonable provision to mitigate noise, in response to concerns of the Government that agent of change provisions might somehow remove discretion from planning authorities.

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)

As I understand it, the member’s argument is that if the amendments in his name are not agreed to and the amendments in Mr Stewart’s name are agreed to, agent of change will fall away from the bill. However, Mr Stewart wants to retain section 14F, which the member will recall was added at stage 2 as a result of an amendment in my name, to protect the agent of change principle in the bill. Given that section 14F will remain, why does the member think that agent of change will fall away from the bill, when we all want to keep it in?

Lewis Macdonald

Because, as Mr Tomkins will appreciate, although section 14F does no harm it simply restates the law as it stands. I will come on to that in a moment, in the context of the concerns that the Government has raised.

Amendment 180, in my name, provides that planning authorities may consult any organisation that represents live music venues, rather than just the Music Venue Trust. The minister’s amendment 131 would remove any such obligation to consult, and no body would be consulted on the matter.

Because we supported the changes that the committee made at stage 2, we will oppose all the Government amendments that seek to remove them.

Mr Tomkins mentioned his amendment at stage 2 that had the effect of inserting section 14F. As he knows, we want to strengthen section 14F through amendment 182, which we think will give effect to what is wanted. Section 14F as it stands simply restates the law as it stands. Under existing planning law, as Mr Tomkins must be aware, a planning authority may not make noise mitigation by an existing business a condition of granting planning permission for a development by a different business. That is simply not possible. It was true before, it is true now and section 14F, as it stands, will not change the meaning of the law at all.

A number of venue operators contacted MSPs this week to warn of the

“immediate threat to iconic venues in Scotland, such as King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut and Sub Club”,

if the principle of agent of change is removed from the bill, which is what the Government seeks to do. That threat is not addressed by the Tomkins provisions. Glasgow City Council could not impose costs directly on either venue as a condition of granting planning permission to someone else; that is all that section 14F currently prohibits. The immediate threat about which venue operators are worried is that a council might grant permission to a new developer without requiring the developer to cover the costs of noise mitigation that the venue itself might undertake. Section 14F simply does not address that risk.

Amendment 182 would require a planning authority in those circumstances to take particular account of whether the developer had made sufficient provision to mitigate the effect of noise from an existing venue. That would mean no extra costs for King Tut’s, because all extra costs would be borne by the developer, as the agent of change. Only if amendment 182 is agreed to will section 14F achieve the outcome that Mr Tomkins seeks to achieve. I hope that he and the minister will support amendment 182 in the spirit in which it was lodged.

The committee agreed at stage 2 to allow councils to designate “culturally significant zones” and to provide extra protection, which would be analogous with conservation status. We recognise that there are concerns about those provisions, so amendments 177 and 178, in my name, are designed to give the Parliament the option not to proceed with the approach, while retaining the agent of change principle. The minister’s amendment 129 would throw out both approaches at the same time, removing all the effective protection that was added at stage 2.

I urge members to reject the Government amendments and to support all the Labour amendments in this group, to strengthen the law in the way that I think that all parties want to strengthen it.

I move amendment 175.

Kevin Stewart

I agree that we need to protect and encourage our music industry’s significant cultural and economic contribution to our society. Certainly, our music venues should not find themselves at risk as a result of new development being proposed in their vicinity.

I have already given my commitment that we will include a clear statement of how our planning system should embrace the agent of change principle through the new national planning framework on which we are about to embark, which will embed the principle into the statutory development plan. We will continue to engage with operators of our music venues as we work it up. However, I did not wait for the NPF to come around. Last year, I asked the Government’s chief planner to write to all planning authorities to ensure that the agent of change principle is being applied now.

My amendments 121, 127 and 129 seek to remove the provisions for culturally significant zones from the bill. I can see how they had their origins in the agent of change principle, but they would be incredibly damaging to the venues and to the communities and vibrant town centres that they sit in—the very places that we want to protect and enhance.

At stage 2, what Mr Macdonald basically advocated were development-free zones that would have led to culture-free zones. He went too far and he still cannot admit it. During the discussions about the bill, everybody else in the chamber has compromised, but Mr Macdonald still does not see that he went too far. I hope that members will support my amendments 121, 127 and 129 to secure the removal of Mr Macdonald’s daft proposals.

Adam Tomkins’s amendment adding section 14F to the bill was agreed to at stage 2, and I am happy to support the retention of section 14F. I am content with Lewis Macdonald’s addition to it, so I will support amendment 182. I also recognise the desirability of supporting cultural venues, including music venues, in our towns and cities, so I am content to support amendment 175.

Mr Macdonald’s amendment 180 is unnecessary. The other statutory consultees are set out in secondary legislation, and I am happy to explore consultation with music venue representatives when revising the development management procedure regulations after the bill is passed. I ask members to support amendment 131, so that we can do that.

Adam Tomkins

Will the member take an intervention?

17:45

Pauline McNeill

Hold on. Everybody wants to make an intervention.

If things are not made clear in the bill, then the minister risks not living up to the promise that he made. There have already been compromises.

Although section 14F is helpful, it does not put things beyond doubt. There is still a need for explicit provisions in the bill. The minister—I will give way to him in a minute—is arguing that the agent of change principle should be included in policy and in the form of a statement. He must know, as a legislator, that that is in no way as concrete as having it in the bill would be. The venues fear that they will not be able to rely on a statement—something that does not really have any meaning. We all know that legislation is the strongest provision.

Kevin Stewart

This is pitiful.

Members: Oh!

Kevin Stewart

Folk should read section 14F. I have given a commitment about the agent of change principle all the way through the passage of the bill—in fact, I gave a commitment about it before the bill came into being.

We have here a member who is sore about putting forward amendments that would have caused chaos and led to a lack of development. Members should read section 14F and read about the agent of change principle—we are going to go even further when it comes to policy. Please do not try to say that the bill does not cover the agent of change principle.

The Presiding Officer

I point out that the member gave way for an intervention rather than a speech.

Pauline McNeill

I stand here representing many of the venues, and I do not think that the minister is listening to any of them. They are saying that if we share the same intention and if the minister believes what I believe, then he should nail it down to make sure. It is not about compromising new development. The minister must know that. It is about ensuring that when new development comes along, venues are not compromised. For example, the Barrowlands venue has been there since 1930. Every day it has complaints from new developments and it has had to spend money on noise mitigation. Does the minister understand that that is the problem?

I ask the minister to reconsider, and to make sure that there is strong provision in the bill that the venues can rely on when it comes to planning. That is all that we are asking. I do not think that it is daft or too much to ask.

Adam Tomkins

I am genuinely puzzled by what Pauline McNeill and Mr Macdonald have said, because there is no amendment to remove section 14F, which will remain in the bill. It provides that

“a planning authority may not, as a condition of granting planning permission for a noise-sensitive development, impose on a noise source”—

such as King Tut’s or the Sub Club—

“additional costs relating to acoustic design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of noise.”

That is the agent of change principle, and it is in the bill.

Pauline McNeill

Section 14F is helpful, but we need belt and braces for the avoidance of doubt. As a member of this Parliament, I have spent 17 years dealing with planning authorities. I know that if something is not in the legislation, they can ignore it. We may have a difference of opinion—[Interruption.] The bill does not mention live music venues. What is wrong with some plain English in a bill—for once—that says that live music venues should be protected in law by the agent of change principle?

Andy Wightman

I do not want to intrude on disagreements, but at stage 2, I supported the amendments from both Adam Tomkins and Lewis Macdonald, on the condition that they would work together with the Government to rationalise the provisions for stage 3. That does not seem to have happened and I am disappointed. Perhaps it points to a broader issue with the process of this bill, in which the Government appears to have preferred to work with the Conservatives rather than collaborate more widely.

In the minister’s defence, although we remain sympathetic to culturally significant zones, we were concerned at stage 2 and we remain concerned at stage 3 that they are potentially unwieldy, so we will not support them. However, I am disappointed that the key attractions embodied in that idea have not been taken further forward.

We will support all the amendments in the group, except for amendments 129 and 139, because we wish to retain the agent of change principle in the bill.

Adam Tomkins

I am pleased to see, for a change, the Scottish Government and its principal Opposition working together in the public interest. That is a good thing, rather than something to be criticised.

Before I get into the substance of the matter, I need to correct something that I said inadvertently and in error at stage 2, when Lewis Macdonald, the minister, other members and I debated the issues. I inadvertently attributed comments to KSG Acoustics that I should have attributed to the Music Venue Trust. At the time, I wrote to them to apologise for the mistake. I also apologise to Parliament for having made that mistake.

As we have already heard, at stage 2, a series of amendments in Lewis Macdonald’s and my names were made to bring the agent of change principle into force in Scots planning law for the first time. For the avoidance of doubt, the agent of change principle is easy to state. The key is chronology. We want to avoid the situation in which an existing music venue finds that, as a result of a developer moving into its area, fresh noise mitigation measures must be put in place at the venue’s expense. That is the agent of change principle, and that is what section 14F of the bill, as amended at stage 2, seeks to do.

I am glad to hear the minister say that he will accept Lewis Macdonald’s amendment 182. So, too, will the Conservatives. Amendment 182 will add to section 14F: it will strengthen the provision even further to put beyond doubt protection of the agent of change principle in the bill. As Lewis Macdonald said a few moments ago, it is not a restatement of the legal position as it currently appears, but a change in the law. Section 14F does not reflect current legal practice or the current legal position. It will change the law, and amendment 182 will reinforce and underscore that change in order to make it stronger. For that reason, we accept amendment 182.

Lewis Macdonald

I welcome the fact that Adam Tomkins and Kevin Stewart have indicated support for amendment 182. That gives some force to the change in the law that section 14F will introduce. Mr Tomkins will agree that it would currently be unlawful for a planning authority to impose a condition on King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut as a condition of agreeing a planning application for another business. In that sense, without the amendment, his section was ineffective.

Adam Tomkins

Lewis Macdonald and I seek to achieve the same end, but by different means. We supported Lewis Macdonald’s amendments at stage 2, but are unable to do so now because of a critical thing that occurred between stages 2 and 3. The revised financial memorandum puts the costs of Lewis Macdonald’s amendments on culturally protected zones at up to £330 million. We do not think that that cost is in the public interest. That is the difference between our position, which the Government shares, and the position that is still endorsed by the Labour Party. However, there is no difference between us on the principle that we seek to have reflected appropriately in our planning law. There is a difference only of means.

I welcome the fact that, between stages 2 and 3, the minister has been open minded on the matter and I welcome the fact that he is now prepared to work with section 14F to ensure that it works both in law and in the policy that the Scottish Government proposes to make, in accordance with the national planning framework.

We will support all Kevin Stewart’s amendments in the group. Of Lewis Macdonald’s amendments we will support amendment 182, as I have said, and amendment 175. We think that section 14F would have worked well enough as it stands, but we are content that amendment 182 will strengthen it—or, at least, will not weaken it.

As I said, we cannot support Lewis Macdonald’s other amendments in the group. We strongly disagree with Labour’s ill-conceived and scaremongering press release earlier this month about the issues. With or without amendment 182, section 14F will keep the agent of change principle firmly in the bill. That is as it should be in Scots planning law. We can all agree on that point of principle.

Alex Rowley

Professor Tomkins said that he is pleased that the Tories and the Scottish National Party worked together in the public interest. I am not sure that it is in the public interest to deny the public equal rights with developers, and it is certainly not in the public interest to deny people a say over developments in their communities, as the bill will.

To move on, I strongly support Lewis Macdonald’s amendments in the group. He has done the work of speaking to people at live music venues across the country to ensure that their interests have been heard about during the bill’s passage.

Kevin Stewart

Alex Rowley knows that it is not only Mr Macdonald who has talked to folk from live music venues; I have done so, too—which is one reason why the note from the chief planner came out long before today. Mr Tomkins has talked to folk from live music venues, and the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs constantly talks to them and has relayed her views to me. Mr Rowley should not try to suggest that Labour members are the only people who have talked to folk from live music venues. Beyond that, he should grasp the fact that the agent of change principle is in section 14F.

Alex Rowley

I simply said that Lewis Macdonald has worked hard and has spoken to people from live music venues across the country. He is reflecting what those people told him.

The minister has pledged to implement the agent of change principle through planning policy, but what does that mean? It means that if the principle is violated, the only recourse for music venues will be through legal channels. Not many venues will have the funding or capacity for that. Does the minister think that that is acceptable?

Sandra White

King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut and most of the live venues in Glasgow city centre are in my constituency. Two weeks ago, I was at an open mic night at King Tut’s. I was not singing, but my nieces sing in a band. I have also been to live music venues where Pauline McNeill has sung in a band.

I am interested in the politics of the issue, but I am more interested in ensuring that live music venues stay open. In the beginning, I supported Lewis Macdonald’s proposal on the agent of change principle, and I still support that, but I draw his attention to what Adam Tomkins said—he must realise that the agent of change principle has not changed. I do not know where the idea has come from that live music venues will have to pay for soundproofing; it is in the bill that the agent of change will cover that.

I am grateful to the minister for listening not just to me, but to many others. I think that we have all met Geoff Ellis, who runs King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut. We also have the Sub Club and many other venues, although I will not mention them all. We have had lots of meetings. When a developer tried to open a hotel next to King Tut’s, I had loads of meetings with Geoff Ellis. That development did not go ahead, which gets to the nub of the situation. As the minister and others have said, live music venues will not have to pay for soundproofing; developers will need to pay for that if they wish to build hotels or housing, for example.

I do not support Lewis Macdonald’s amendments on culturally significant zones, but I support his amendments 175 and 182, which are good. Even some people in the music industry have expressed concern about CSZs, which they said could stop development in town centres and stop regeneration. We must listen to everybody: some people in the music industry expressed that view.

I support amendments 175 and 182, in the name of Lewis Macdonald, and the amendments in the name of the minister. However, we should be very careful about agreeing to Lewis Macdonald’s amendments in relation to culturally significant zones. The music industry on the whole is not in favour of those amendments and has raised concerns.

18:00

Lewis Macdonald

Does Sandra White appreciate that the amendments in my name would remove all references to culturally significant zones?

Sandra White

I am very happy to support Lewis Macdonald’s amendments 175 and 182, but he has other amendments in relation to his view that the agent of change principle is not included in the bill. We disagree on that point, because I believe that the agent of change principle is in the bill, so the other amendments that Lewis Macdonald has lodged are not needed.

The Presiding Officer

I note that we have passed the agreed time limit by which the debate on this group of amendments should have finished. I exercise my power under standing orders rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate to continue beyond the time limit in order to avoid its being unreasonably curtailed. However, I ask members to be mindful of time.

I call Lewis Macdonald to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 175.

Lewis Macdonald

The minister asked whether I will compromise; I am only sorry that he does not appreciate the compromises that I have already offered. It was in that spirit that I lodged amendments 177 and 178, which were perhaps the only amendments in my name that the minister did not address in his remarks. Neither the minister nor Mr Tomkins offered any explanation for why they wish to remove all of section 14C of the bill, as amended, by supporting amendment 129, in the minister’s name, when they could support my amendments 177 and 178, which would remove all references to “culturally significant zones”, but would retain at the heart of the bill the agent of change principle. I invite Mr Tomkins, his colleagues and members of the Government to consider why they cannot support my amendments 177 and 178.

I welcome the broad support for my amendment 182, which will strengthen the bill, and for my amendment 175. I congratulate the Music Venue Trust and the music venues that have supported, and lobbied vigorously for, the amendments in my name. Venues from Orkney, Galashiels, Aberdeen, Paisley, Falkirk, Inverness, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee have come together to pursue the changes, and I know that they will continue to do so. In support of that continuing campaign for full protection under the law, I press amendment 175.

Amendment 175 agreed to.

Amendments 75 to 79 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 75 to 79?

Members: Yes.

The Presiding Officer

In that case, I will call the amendments in order.

Amendments 75 and 76 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 77 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 92, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 77 agreed to.

Amendments 78 and 79 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 80 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 85, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 80 agreed to.

Amendment 81 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 12 is on a list of persons seeking land for self-build housing. Amendment 117, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 120 and 123.

Graham Simpson

At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that aimed to make it easier for people to build their own homes by making self-build plots easily identifiable through a register. I wanted the register to be publicly visible so that people who wished to build their own homes could express interest in a plot. The amendment was not agreed to, but I did not give up hope.

My amendments in this group seek to facilitate self-build housing. Amendment 120 requires councils to establish lists of people seeking land for self-build housing. Clearly, we would need to have regard to the general data protection regulation.

Amendment 117 says that planning authorities would need

“to have regard to the list”

when preparing their local development plans. A similar scheme was put in place by the Greater London Authority, where public land was released for development across the authority; it helped to increase housing supply across the area. The scheme, which was run by the GLA, was imaginatively called the build your own London home register. Having such a register could empower people to shape their living spaces in the way that they want and contribute to vibrant and varied communities. Facilitating that custom-build approach would empower individuals and groups, strengthen neighbourhood links and create local jobs.

Amendment 123 relates to self-build housing within masterplan consent areas. It provides that

“A masterplan consent area scheme may, under section 54B(1)(a), specify”

that it provides authorisation for self-build housing development.

We can and should be doing exciting work on self-build housing in Scotland. We could, for example, replicate the exciting Graven Hill development in Oxfordshire, the United Kingdom’s largest self-build development, as seen on television’s “Grand Designs”. That was an old Ministry of Defence site, which was taken over by the local council and marketed to people who wanted to build a home. There is a fantastic mix of houses and apartments there, including affordable ones. A Scottish version in the right place would be a winner and, with these amendments, it is my hope that we can make that happen.

I move amendment 117.

Andy Wightman

Amendment 117 requires planning authorities, in preparing local development plans, to have regard to a list of persons who are interested in land for self-build housing, as set out in amendment 120. As Graham Simpson said, he introduced a version of amendment 117 at stage 2.

Greens want more self-procurement of housing; indeed, we want it to provide around half of all new housing, as happens in most normal European countries, and we want to eliminate the speculative volume house-building industry. However, we do not think that the bill is the place to do that, because the procurement method is not strictly a planning matter. All land that is allocated for housing could be used for self-procured housing, as is common in continental Europe. However, the approach in Mr Simpson’s amendments 117 and 120 is to put self-procurement in a ghetto rather than the mainstream. I see that Mr Simpson is chuckling. If he wishes to intervene, I am happy to take an intervention.

Amendment 123 has greater merit but, even here, it is not clear how the procurement methods can be specified in planning. Nevertheless, as the amendment is focused on masterplan consent areas, we will support it, given that that is a new form of consent and is likely to have greater flexibility in its deployment.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to support the amendments in the group. Mr Simpson has worked positively with me to develop the proposals to replace the amendment on the issue that he lodged at stage 2.

The Government has an on-going programme of work to support and promote self and custom build in Scotland, including the £4 million self-build loan fund and seven pilot projects. I agree with Mr Simpson that the planning system should more actively support that approach to housing delivery. In theory, any site that is suitable for housing is potentially suitable for self-build homes.

The amendments improve on Mr Simpson’s stage 2 amendment, as they focus more on linking people with available sites. Self-build housing could also be a good option in masterplan consent areas, where we want diverse good-quality development that responds to local needs and aspirations.

I encourage all members to support the amendments.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 93, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 117 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I call the minister to move amendment 82.

Kevin Stewart

I have listened to members’ comments and I will not move amendment 82.

Amendment 82 not moved.

Amendments 83 and 84 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 13 is on local place plans. Amendment 85, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 104, 195 and 196.

Kevin Stewart

At stage 2, the committee agreed to amendments that will require planning authorities to set out the assistance that is available to communities for the preparation of local place plans. We consider the scope of those amendments to be too narrow, as they will require information to be provided only on the assistance available from the planning authority. We expect that assistance will also be available from other sources, including policy or guidance that is prepared by the Scottish Government, tools such as the place standard and support from various community support organisations.

Local sources of information, support or funding will be available to each local authority. It would be helpful for planning authorities to signpost such wider support. Amendments 85 and 104 therefore adjust the requirements for them to set out the assistance that is provided to communities for local place plans, allowing that to cover assistance from other sources. I hope that members will support that.

18:15

Alex Rowley’s amendments 195 and 196 seek to introduce a review period for local place plans. I agree that there would be value in reviewing the operation and effectiveness of such plans. As it would be an important element of the wider reform package, we want to see communities utilising that tool to influence the future development of where they stay. I therefore support amendment 195.

I do not support amendment 196, which also provides for a review of the operation and effectiveness of local place plans. This version goes on potentially to link the review outcome with the introduction of a community right of appeal. Members will be aware of my views on the introduction of such a right of appeal into the planning system. I believe that it would only introduce additional conflict at the end of the process. We will have a full debate on that later. Our proposals to improve engagement with communities at earlier stages go across the whole planning system—from the national planning framework to pre-application consultation—and not just local place plans. It is certainly not appropriate to tie a parliamentary decision on introducing appeals to just one element of our broad planning reform package when there will be a wide range of ways in which communities can influence the future of their places. I therefore ask Mr Rowley not to press amendment 196.

I move amendment 85.

Alex Rowley

Amendment 195 introduces a duty to review the effectiveness of local place plans after seven years. Amendment 196 introduces a duty to review the effectiveness of such place plans after seven years, with a requirement being placed on Parliament to consider amending appeal rights if the plans have not effectively engaged communities in the planning system.

Labour accepts the Government’s amendment 85 to ensure that wider support is available for those who develop local place plans. However, we remain deeply sceptical about the idea of such plans and maintain that the Government has failed to provide any evidence that they will transform community engagement in the planning system.

The committee heard several concerns about how local place plans would work in practice, their status and the level of influence that they would have in the planning system. They included concerns about the level of resources available to community groups to produce such plans.

In evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee, the Scottish Property Federation estimated that the cost of producing a local place plan could be between £25,000 and £30,000. Further, the capacity of communities—especially disadvantaged ones—to produce such plans would be difficult to assess. Factors would include the extent to which an authority would actually have regard to a local place plan that it received; the extent to which such plans might displace community time and resources from engagement with the preparation process for local development plans; and the extent to which local place plans might be constrained by the requirement to reflect the local development plan or the NPF and other spatial plans as agreed development plans took place.

For example, Ballantrae community council said:

“The Local Place Plan initiative is set to fail and increase inequalities unless communities themselves are given funds and access to experts to produce their own plan.”

Moray Council considered that

“The Bill should focus on further integration of early and continuing engagement, rather than introduce another layer of plans and further complications to the system.”

Scottish Environment LINK said:

“The fact that they are not part of the local development plan means that they are likely to be given pretty limited weight, and we think that there is a risk that, as formulated, they could end up being quite a distraction from engagement in the local development plan. We are not keen on them as they are currently being progressed. We would much rather see a concentration on getting better engagement in the local development plan process”.

I beg your pardon. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer

That is quite all right. I am glad that you are on the ball, Mr Wightman. [Interruption.] No—he is absolutely right. He said earlier that there would be an objection to amendment 87.

Graham Simpson

I apologise—I did not hear what Andy Wightman said at the end about whether he will support my amendments 118 and 119.

The Presiding Officer

I invite Andy Wightman to clarify his last statement.

Andy Wightman

I said at the end of my short contribution that we will not support amendments 118 and 119.

Graham Simpson

People get frustrated with the planning system when they see councils rejecting applications, only for the rejection to be overturned on appeal. One of the arguments that developers use—often it is successful—is that local development plans have not allocated sufficient housing. The outcome of a successful appeal can be a frustrated community; equally, it can be a developer thinking that they could have done without the delay. If councils got their housing allocations right and, crucially, agreed at the outset, we could avoid all that.

Amendment 119, which is in my name, is an attempt to improve on that situation. It would give an appointed person—probably a reporter—a new power if they are

“not satisfied”

with

“the amount of land allocated for housing”.

Alex Rowley

What has happened in Fife is a classic example of that. The planning minister—I think that, at the time, it was Derek Mackay—increased the number of houses that should be available in the SESplan area, which includes Fife. If members met the head of planning and the strategic director of planning in Fife Council, they would tell members that there is more than enough land available and that it is the Scottish Government that has got it wrong. Amendment 119 would not help when—as was the case in Aberdour—a planning application that has been through all the local planning processes is refused, but that decision is overturned by the Government on the ground that there is not enough housing land. That happened despite the head of planning and the strategic development manager saying that the Government’s figures were wrong. I am not sure that amending the bill simply to say that enough housing land supply must be allocated would be satisfactory to the people who have suffered as a result of that disagreement in Fife.

Graham Simpson

Alex Rowley has spoken for longer than I had intended to speak to my amendments, but I am still not actually sure whether he agrees with amendment 119. Surely we need local plans to allocate the right amount of housing and for that to be agreed at the outset. Amendment 119 has the support of Homes for Scotland, so I think that it is worth accepting. It could reduce the number of appeals and the amount of frustration about the system. Everybody would know where they stand from the start, which is what we should be aiming for. I hope that that would lead to better practice and rigorous local development plans, but I also hope that the power would not be used.

Amendment 118 is a technical amendment that would support amendment 119.

We cannot support Andy Wightman’s amendment 194. It was lodged so late that we had no chance to amend it before the deadline. We like the principle behind it—it would ensure that communities and complainants would have a right to be heard—but, unfortunately, under the amendment as drafted, hearings could involve an almost infinite number of people. I would have liked to have discussed the matter with Andy Wightman in advance. That was not to be, which is a shame.

Kevin Stewart

It is important that local development plans be properly and independently scrutinised prior to their adoption. Wider provisions in the bill will ensure that that is done earlier in the process, through scrutiny of an evidence report by an independent person, which will ensure that housing requirements are assessed up front. Authorities will be expected after that to allocate sites for development, and to include the sites in a proposed plan that is then independently examined at the end of the process. The amendments in group 14 relate to the duties and powers of reporters who will undertake that final examination.

Andy Wightman’s amendment 194 would reintroduce a right to be heard at the examination stage for all parties who have made an unresolved representation on the plan. Similar provisions were removed by the 2006 act because it was argued at the time that members of the public might not feel comfortable participating in such proceedings with lawyers and planning consultants who have been retained by developers. Many issues can be fully understood and considered through written submissions; the current arrangements allow for a more proportionate and efficient approach. I do not want to add further conflict, time and cost to the system. I am also concerned that amendment 194 was lodged very late and without wider consultation. Therefore, I cannot support it.

On the other amendments in the group, at the moment, when a local development plan that has obvious shortcomings is put forward for adoption, there can be pressure on the reporter or, indeed, on ministers, to fix the problem. However, I believe that where a plan fails to allocate sufficient land for housing, for example, the solution should come, in the first instance, from the local authority rather than through an intervention by central Government. The amendments will put responsibility for local development plans firmly in the hands of local authorities.

18:45

Reporters can recommend modifications to plans to address problems that they have identified in examination. My amendments 98 and 99 will give the reporter a further option in situations in which it is clear that shortcomings of plans cannot be addressed by relatively minor changes and adjustments. They mean that the reporter could recommend to an authority that it amend its plan immediately after it has been adopted. In some cases, it is in everyone’s interest to have a plan in place, even when there are outstanding issues that need to be addressed. A requirement for changes to be made to the plan soon after it has been adopted could ensure that it does the job that it is supposed to do in a timely way.

There is much debate on planning for housing—it has always been a very contentious issue. A plan-led approach to housing development can be undermined if plans fail to allocate sufficient land for housing. Graham Simpson’s amendments 118 and 119 are similar to mine, but provide a further option that aims specifically to ensure that plans allocate sufficient land for housing. Where that is not the case, the amendments would allow the reporter to return the plan to the authority so that it can allocate more land to ensure that the housing needs of the area can be properly met. I agree that that could also be a useful option in some circumstances.

Local development plans have a crucial role to play in the planning system, but we can have a plan-led system only if those plans tackle their area’s development needs properly. I have considered how the bill can best support that in a way that reflects our wider aims of planning reform. There might not have been much agreement evident in the earlier stages of the bill, but it is clear that there is cross-party support for further decentralisation of planning powers. I therefore ask all members to support my amendments 98 and 99, and Graham Simpson’s amendments 118 and 119.

Andy Wightman

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 194 disagreed to.

Amendment 118 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 91, Against 28, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 118 agreed to.

Amendment 98 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 104 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

I was the first to speak this afternoon, and I will be the last. I promised to keep things brief, and I will stick to that with this amendment.

Amendment 122 relates to local place plans—it is an attempt to make them better. At stage 2, I brought forward an idea that communities could identify locally significant buildings that are important to them. That did not go through at stage 2, so I have slightly changed the idea, and the amendment says merely that a local community can “identify land and buildings” that it considers important. The amendment would enhance the local place plan idea and would give people a real say in what is important to them in their communities.

I will end there, because I know that members want to leave.

I move amendment 122.

Kevin Stewart

I support amendment 122.

The Presiding Officer

I take it that Mr Simpson has nothing further to add.

Graham Simpson

You are quite right, Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 122 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Abstentions

Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 99, Against 20, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 122 agreed to.

Section 10—Masterplan consent area schemes

Amendment 123 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

18 June 2019

Second debate on proposed amendments

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is the continuation of stage 3 proceedings on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list, the correction slip for amendment 3 and the groupings of amendments. As this is the second day, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes before the first division of the afternoon. That first division will last for 30 seconds, but thereafter the first division after every debate will last one minute and all other votes will last for 30 seconds.

Yesterday, I tried to give members an indication of which were the long groups. I had been asked by a member to do that, but I got it spectacularly wrong, so I am not going to do it today. However, I will indicate that we are likely to take a break following group 25, which might be at around half past 4, and we might take another break following group 32. We will play that by ear and I will try to indicate to members in advance of when it is about to happen.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list. We will resume consideration of section 10, picking up at group 16, which is on land value capture/sharing. Amendment 112, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 212 and 215.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

It feels as though I have never been away.

Amendment 112 removes land value capture from the bill. It was introduced by an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. Initially, the bill had no mechanism for capturing any land value uplift. It was a subject that the Local Government and Communities Committee had a close look at and I think that there is general cross-party support for the concept.

However, my stage 2 amendment has raised legal concerns. I have to be honest about that and say that I do not think that there is a place for it in the bill, because there are problems with it. Organisations such as the Scottish Property Federation have called it “premature” and welcomed amendment 112, which removes the provision. Scottish Land & Estates pointed out its possible incompatibility with the European convention on human rights. That point was also raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which I convene.

Given the work that is being undertaken by the Scottish Land Commission on land value capture, this bill is not the place for it and I am happy to remove it. On that basis, I will not be supporting amendments 212 and 215, in the name of Alex Rowley.

I move amendment 112.

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

Amendments 212 and 215 require ministers, within 18 months of the bill receiving royal assent, to lay regulations to facilitate land value capture. Legislation to facilitate land value capture—or “land value sharing”, as the Scottish Land Commission has usefully termed it—is not a silver bullet that will solve our current housing supply crisis. We need to adopt a much more proactive approach to public interest-led development across the board and enable our public bodies to take the lead in major developments. However, land value sharing could play a key role in that process.

It is deeply disappointing to see the Tories and the Government teaming up to remove one of the transformative amendments to the bill from stage 2. It should not have been beyond the Government to resolve the legal change that would have been required to make land value sharing possible. Labour is giving the Government an opportunity to cement its support for the principle of land value sharing and to commit to providing the legislative framework to make it possible. We approached the Government before the deadline for lodging amendments and stated that we were open to considering its comments and to extending the timeframe if it was willing to support our amendments, so we do not accept timing as an explanation for its refusal to accept them.

The Government has failed to make formal responses to the Scottish Land Commission’s brilliant recent report on land value sharing and to say whether it accepts the report’s recommendations, so it can hardly blame Labour for starting to question its commitment to the concept.

Graham Simpson

I am not sure whether Alex Rowley was in the chamber when I asked the First Minister about that. She said that there would be a full response to the Scottish Land Commission’s report after the bill is dealt with. I am pretty sure that I also heard the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning say in the chamber that he accepted all the commission’s recommendations, but, no doubt, he will be able to confirm that himself.

Alex Rowley

It is interesting that we seem to have a coalition between the Scottish National Party and the Tories to block radical proposals on land reform. I know who the Tories speak for; it is now clear who SNP members speak for.

Will the minister state, in the Official Report, that he will legislate on land value capture as soon as is reasonably possible? I think that that is a fair question to put to him. Will he also explain how he plans to make more publicly led development a reality? Despite what the Tories think, achieving both of those things would bring huge benefits, so I hope that the minister will answer those questions.

The Scottish Land Commission has successfully conveyed that land value sharing is not about negating all the benefits that the private sector currently gets from development. A publicly led approach can create additional value that can be used to establish ambitious, attractive, sustainable and healthy places that, above all, are built to work for communities—and surely communities and people should be at the heart of the bill’s intentions.

Many of the issues that we have already discussed and will go on to discuss this week—notably, adequate housing for older people and disabled people—would be much more of a reality if we embraced publicly led development, in which public bodies have more influence on the minimum standards for homes that are being built. Such a level of transformative change is required to realise the Parliament’s vision—not the limited provision that the Government has proposed and the Tory party has accepted.

I hope that both parties will consider supporting amendments 212 and 215.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I welcome Graham Simpson to his new role as spokesperson for the First Minister.

Ahead of consideration of the bill at stage 2, I conducted a consultation on the proposal to enable local authorities to acquire land at its existing use value—a power that they had from 1947 until 1959 and which would strip out a substantial part of the profit that accrues to landowners and developers from the uplift in land values.

The developer Murray Estates, which is developing a large area in the west of Edinburgh, is a good example. Having secured planning consent, the company informed me in a meeting that it would simply sell the land, pocketing a very tidy profit though the granting of a public good—a planning consent.

14:30

I know that the Government is interested in the concept, but it has had 18 months to bring forward proposals. Instead, it has kicked the idea into the long grass and missed what might be the only legislative opportunity for some time to introduce such a power.

The power as envisaged—I had an amendment on it at stage 2, which I did not press because Graham Simpson’s amendment had got into the bill—would apply only in masterplan consent areas. It was a very limited power. We intentionally restricted it to enable it to be experimental, to an extent, and to avoid any of the bigger problems that might arise if we applied it across the piece. We focused the power on restricted areas and sought to allow councils to explore the more plan-led and public-led development model that has provided so much success in countries such as Germany.

We oppose the removal from the bill of proposed new section 54CA of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and we will vote against amendment 112. We will support amendments 212 and 215.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

As I have consistently made clear, we as the Government are interested in the concept of land value capture or sharing and we will explore how land value uplifts can effectively be captured to fund infrastructure. That is why the Government asked the Scottish Land Commission to investigate the issue and why I welcomed the report that it published in May. However, I believe that the provisions that were added to the bill at stage 2 were premature and that they risk breaching the European convention on human rights. I therefore welcome amendment 112, which removes from the bill proposed new section 54CA of the 1997 act.

Although I recognise the intention behind Alex Rowley’s proposals, I cannot support them. Changes to compulsory purchase should be made through primary legislation, and it is unrealistic to reform such a complex area of law in such a short timescale. The issue deserves careful examination and consultation, including on how proposals would interact with other mechanisms such as planning agreements and the proposed infrastructure levy.

We will therefore work with the Scottish Land Commission, the Scottish Futures Trust, local authorities and industry representatives to identify how local authorities can best use existing mechanisms to fund infrastructure and what support they may need to do so. We will also look at how new mechanisms such as the levy and land pooling might complement existing mechanisms, and hence whether any changes are required to existing legislation and, crucially, how we can ensure that any changes are fully compliant with the ECHR.

I refer members to the issues around this, including the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, which is, I am told, not going to be particularly easy to unpick if we are to get to ECHR compliance.

I have said constantly, and I will not move from this, that if legislative change is needed, we will pursue that. It may take time, and it may be in the next session of Parliament, but we will outline how we intend to move forward after the bill has been passed, as has been said. We will, of course, work with colleagues across the Parliament, because, like Mr Simpson, I think that there is, in the main, cross-party support on these issues.

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 112 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 17 is on masterplan consent areas. Amendment 13, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 125 and 126.

Andy Wightman

Masterplan consent areas are an area of the bill that has been broadly welcomed, although the exact impact remains to be seen.

I will first address my amendment 13. Section 10(3) introduces a new schedule 5A to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Part 1 of the schedule is concerned with general rules about the content of any masterplan consent area. Section 3 of part 1 lists those areas that may not be included in any such scheme, such as world heritage sites and marine protected areas. Agreement to include such a list followed scrutiny of the bill at stage 1.

Included in the list of areas in which one cannot have a masterplan consent area are national scenic areas, which my amendment proposes to remove. I do not agree that national scenic areas should be excluded by law from such schemes and my amendment 13 would delete NSAs from that list. It is the only designation that should be excluded—I am perfectly happy with the rest—and I will explain why.

National scenic areas, which cover large areas of Scotland, include settlements where there is a need for more affordable housing. Those areas include large parts of Wester Ross, Assynt, Sutherland, the whole of Harris, south Lewis, Kintail, Loch Shiel and a quarter of the Cairngorms national park. As the minister is aware, Scottish Natural Heritage has a consultative role when a development of more than five houses is proposed in a national scenic area, but it does not have a consultative role when any such proposal is specifically provided for in the local development plan.

The minister is probably aware of the recent controversy over affordable housing in north Skye; he will also be aware that circular 9/1987 contains the relevant rules in that regard. In our view, masterplan consent areas could play an important role in providing rural housing. To exclude MCAs by law from being available in national scenic areas is illogical when development can already take place under existing planning provisions. In many areas, masterplan consent areas have the potential to provide a more effective means of providing rural housing—I have been told that by rural housing providers. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 13.

Amendments 125 and 126 reinsert notification, call-in and direction-making powers that were removed at stage 2. Amendment 125 reinstates provisions that allow ministers to direct planning authorities to notify them, which were removed at stage 2. Amendment 126 reinstates ministerial powers to call in proposals for masterplan consent areas and to modify them; again, my amendment 95 at stage 2 removed those powers. I will vote against amendments 125 and 126. I understand that ministers see those powers as a parallel to those that are in place for ordinary planning applications. However, given that we wish to see call-in powers curtailed and, in general, the power of ministers over planning authorities limited, we will oppose those two amendments.

I move amendment 13.

Kevin Stewart

Masterplan consent areas are a new way in which planning authorities can take a proactive place-making approach and provide consent. Mr Wightman has argued that they should be allowed in national scenic areas. At stage 2, I outlined how we have worked with the relevant agencies and agreed that it would be right to restrict MCAs in international and national designations. I still believe that that is a clear and appropriate approach.

Mr Wightman suggests that MCAs could assist in repopulating NSAs in the islands. However, the island authorities have told us they would not envisage bringing forward MCA schemes for land in such areas. Therefore, I do not support amendment 13.

14:45

Group 18 is on technical/regulations. Amendment 124, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 128, 134, 135, 151 and 153 to 155.

Kevin Stewart

The amendments in this group are mainly technical; they will remove duplication and tidy up wording. Just one of them—amendment 155—has a little more substance. Section 20B of the bill inserts new section 77A into the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. That will enable ministers by regulations to make provision about the payment of compensation, where planning permission granted by a development order is withdrawn and a subsequent application for equivalent consent is refused or granted subject to different conditions.

In its stage 2 report on the bill, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that that power should be subject to the affirmative procedure, because it deals with compensation and can apply or disapply provisions of primary legislation. I was happy to accept that recommendation and consequently lodged an amendment to enact it.

For the rest of the amendments in this group, I can provide more details if members have any questions, but I hope that these technical changes can be supported.

I move amendment 124.

Amendment 124 agreed to.

Amendment 125 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 125 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 125 agreed to.

Amendment 126 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 126 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 95, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 126 agreed to.

Section 11A—Culturally significant zones

Amendment 127 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 127 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 127 agreed to.

Section 11B—Meaning of “development”: use of dwellinghouse for short-term holiday lets

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 156, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 157, 157A, 157B, 157C, 157D, 157E, 217 and 159. I point out that if amendment 156 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 157 or, as a consequence, amendments 157A, 157B, 157C, 157D and 157E, as they will all be pre-empted.

Andy Wightman

Following concerns that constituents expressed to me shortly after I was elected in 2016, I began looking into the question of short-term lets. I got the opportunity to ask a question during general question time on 19 January 2017, and I asked the Scottish Government what plans it had to regulate the growth in short-term letting. The minister will probably remember it as the “audible sex parties” question. The minister, Kevin Stewart, told me:

“The Scottish Government has no plans to regulate the growth in short-term letting.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2017; c 6.]

He told me that any change of use was a matter “for the planning authority” and that I should engage in the consultation on the planning bill. So, here we are at stage 3: I engaged with the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

I discussed the matter with planners and ran a consultation over summer 2018, and I concluded that the planning rules that govern change of use need to be changed. Put simply, the conversion of a domestic dwelling to a commercial short-term let is a change of use, and it requires consent if the change is material—that is the law today. Given that planning authorities across the country tend to assess the question on the basis of the intensity and frequency of visitors, the problem lies in determining whether such a change is material. Effectively monitoring the comings and goings of visitors is an impossible task for planning officers. Therefore, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 that provided that a simple change of use from a dwelling to a commercial short-term let, which is no longer the sole or main residence of any person, constituted a change of use for the purposes of planning law, with no additional inquiries needing to be made. The amendment was accepted at stage 2 and it formed section 11B of the bill. At stage 2, the minister promised to work with me in advance of stage 3, as did Conservative members.

My amendment 156 reflects recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee to define short-term lets, which I have done. Amendment 156 does not, however, as has frequently been claimed, fetter the discretion or autonomy of planning authorities in any way. It merely makes a modest change to the framework for considering change of use—regulations that have been in place since 1997 and that are universal in their application across Scotland. Amendment 156 makes a modest change to the gatekeeping functions that determine what is, and what is not, a change of use. Today, in almost every instance, any change of use to a commercial short-term let is a material change of use, and planning authorities deal with those applications.

Local flexibility, which is at the centre of many people’s concerns, does not arise from planning law. To my knowledge, not a single piece of this planning bill or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 applies only in certain parts of Scotland—Scots law is for Scotland. Local flexibility does not arise from law, but from plans and policies that enable planning authorities to be free to consent to as many or as few applications as they wish, in line with their own plans and policies. My amendment would not change that one bit.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. It would sabotage the central purpose of amendment 156 by making the modest change that I just outlined applicable only to so-called

“short-term let control areas”.

I am sure that the phrase will be repeated ad nauseum by the Scottish National Party and the Tories to pretend that they have done something about the problem. In addition, by making the provisions of amendment 157 subject to further regulations, the opportunity is created for the vested interests in the short-term let industry to influence those regulations in their own interest. That should be of no surprise to any member, given that Airbnb was a member of the Government panel on the collaborative economy.

We already know that some planning authorities are not even interested in the so-called zones. Last week, Glasgow City Council argued that the zonal approach that is suggested by the Conservative amendment does not fit with current policy. A council spokesperson said:

“It would fail to protect the amenity of residents living outside of those zones who may be affected by unauthorised change of use to short stay accommodation”.

All of that raises the question: if planning authorities are not interested in the provisions in amendment 157—the so-called areas, when they are finalised—what should they do? What if they think that the control areas are of no use to them?

I accept the parliamentary arithmetic, and that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment will probably pass. However, some weeks ago, I put a compromise to the Conservatives. I said that we should allow those areas that are not to be short-term let control areas to enjoy some modest improvement in the law—hence my amendments 157A to 157E to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157. They are designed to allow planning authorities for which control areas are deemed not to be the answer a more straightforward means of identifying properties that are changing their use. In other words, if the minister and Rachael Hamilton are genuinely interested in local choice, they should provide one.

I move amendment 156.

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

There has been growing concern about platforms such as Airbnb, which are revolutionising the short-term renting of properties in popular tourist destinations. However, Scotland must be a welcoming country, and we must have flexible and affordable accommodation right across Scotland. The major cities of the world, in particular, have been experiencing the pressure. The main focus here has been on Edinburgh—

Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

15:00

The Presiding Officer

Hang on one second, Ms Hamilton.

Neil Findlay

It might have been missed, but should the member not have declared an interest at the start of her contribution?

The Presiding Officer

That is not a point of order. It is up to each member to decide whether others may judge whether they have something to declare. It is entirely a matter for the member to decide.

Rachael Hamilton

Like many other MSPs, I do not have an Airbnb or a short-term rental. However, I thank Neil Findlay for being so considerate.

Of course, the main focus in Scotland has been on areas in Edinburgh, in particular the Old Town. Such areas have been weighed down by the burden of an increase in inward-bound visitors. The Scottish Conservatives are well aware of the concerns of local residents and understand that antisocial behaviour and a lack of housing are just two areas of concern—which Andy Wightman has spoken to me about.

Despite the lack of concrete data, we believe that there is anecdotal evidence to signify a regional variation, with Edinburgh experiencing the highest concentration of short-term let pressure, as I have mentioned.

Kezia Dugdale (Lothian) (Lab)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Presiding Officer

I am sorry, Ms Hamilton, but would you mind pointing the microphone slightly more towards you?

Sorry—I interrupted in the middle of a potential intervention, although it is up to Rachael Hamilton to decide whether to take an intervention or otherwise.

Rachael Hamilton

I will take an intervention.

Kezia Dugdale

I am grateful to the member for giving way. Will she admit to the Parliament that amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment to the work of Andy Wightman? If she is not wrecking his proposal, can she explain why, as a Conservative, she is arguing for a more bureaucratic and time-consuming process?

Rachael Hamilton

Of course, I completely disagree with Kezia Dugdale. Amendment 157 delivers a flexible approach, allowing local authorities discretion to set short-term let control areas. We well understand the pressures that are experienced by residents. My amendment seeks to find a solution for local authorities in regulating in those areas that are saturated. I would have thought that Kezia Dugdale would welcome the amendment, and I hope that Labour members will support it after they have heard what we have to say.

I thank the Government for working with the Scottish Government—sorry, that was a Freudian slip—I thank the Government for working with the Scottish Conservatives to achieve that aim. Furthermore, amendment 157 will devolve discretion to local authorities to create short-term let control areas, as I have set out. The purpose of amendment 157 is to target the requirement for planning permission to the most pressured areas, where the local authorities can choose whether or not to promote short-term let control areas, within which planning permission will always be required.

Proposed new section 26B allows a planning authority to designate all or part of the area concerned as a short-term let control area. In designated areas, the use of a dwellinghouse to provide short-term lets would be

“a material change of use of the dwellinghouse”

and would require planning permission. For clarification,

“a tenancy of a dwellinghouse (or part of it) where all or part of the dwellinghouse is the only or principal home of the landlord or occupier”

does not constitute a short-term let.

Andy Wightman

The member said that, within the control areas, such a change of use will always require planning consent. Is she not aware that that is the case across Scotland today and that the only question is about the materiality of that change of use? Therefore, her amendment 157 does nothing for the vast majority of authorities in Scotland, which will probably never use those control areas because they will probably be far too bureaucratic and will be subject to the rules that the Scottish Government deems appropriate in defining what a short-term let is.

Rachael Hamilton

Unlike Andy Wightman, we are taking this situation very seriously and we are putting residents first, while also being a welcoming country and ensuring that we create job opportunities and grow the economy.

Moreover, my amendment 157 seeks to deliver a flexible approach—which is the right one—allowing local authorities that are saturated by short-term lets to regulate, while, on the other hand, allowing for those authorities that do not have that burden not to be legally bound by regulation. My amendment clearly demonstrates a willingness to ensure a positive outcome for residents and communities, some of whom live in attractive and popular tourist hotspots.

Andy Wightman’s amendments 157A to 157E will, if they are supported by the Scottish Parliament, create a situation whereby all short-term lets that do not fall under any of the exemptions in section 11B will constitute a material change of use six months after the bill receives royal assent and will therefore require planning permission. Many owners and operators may find that the use of property as a short-term let was unauthorised, putting them in breach of planning control and potentially exposing them to enforcement action, should planning authorities be minded to take such action. As a consequence, a burden will be placed on local authorities, owners and operators in obtaining retrospective planning consent.

It seems to me that Andy Wightman’s amendments to my amendment 157 take the kill approach, whereas my amendment takes the cure approach. My amendment seeks to find a balance between happy tourists and happy residents. It will drive tourism growth while protecting residents with regulation. Andy Wightman’s amendments would kill off future growth in tourism in areas that need it, whereas my amendment provides a solution to local problems. I appeal to members to see sense and not support Andy Wightman’s amendments.

Daniel Johnson (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)

I thank Andy Wightman for the huge amount of work and effort that he has put into this very important issue. We, as well as the whole city of Edinburgh, owe him thanks, because we have a city-wide problem in Edinburgh.

I make one observation, because small observations often signify much larger change. If we look around the streets of Edinburgh, we will see that key safes have started to appear on doorway after doorway of the city’s tenements. That is a sign of a much larger change: thousands of residential properties have been taken out of residential use, which has had a huge impact on the city, particularly in my constituency.

Rachael Hamilton says that we do not have data, so let me give her some data. In my constituency alone, 1,810 addresses out of a total of 35,443 are registered with Airbnb—that is 5 per cent of all dwellings in my constituency. That has had a huge impact on the city and it is why citizens in Edinburgh say that we are increasingly experiencing a Disneylandification of the city. It is changing the nature and affordability of living in Edinburgh.

We must acknowledge that the original purpose of Airbnb has changed. It is now a business that attracts investment, which has had an impact on people and the city. Of course, short-term lets have their place, but they should not be used to the extent that they have been used in Edinburgh. The reality is that average house prices in the city are cruising towards £300,000. We have to regulate the system.

Andy Wightman’s amendment 156 is proportionate and will made a difference. Quite frankly, Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157 is deficient, because it is reactive, not proactive. It would simply be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted and would give no additional powers—no meaningful change—to local authorities to regulate planning in this critical area.

I urge members to vote for Andy Wightman’s amendment 156, which is critical to ensuring that buildings cannot undergo a disproportionate change of use and that houses are not taken out of residential use into business use. This city needs that change, and I urge members to vote for the amendment with that in mind, for the sake of Edinburgh. I say particularly to members who represent Edinburgh areas that amendment 156 is required.

Alex Rowley

This is another group of amendments that illustrates the SNP-Tory stitch-up in the bill.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work (Derek Mackay)

Here we go.

Alex Rowley

They might not like to hear it, but the new SNP-Tory alliance is evident in the bill. We express our support for Andy Wightman’s amendments. [Interruption.] The finance secretary can shout all he likes, but the fact is that, once again, a progressive proposal is being halted by the alliance between the Tories and the SNP. That is the bottom line.

We believe that Andy Wightman’s amendments are a proportionate response to the growth of short-term lets across Scotland—from urban centres to the Highlands and Islands. Unfortunately, the proposals have been misrepresented as interventions that will prevent buildings from becoming short-term lets; in fact, only a change of use is required, with local authorities being the arbiter of the change. An Airbnb that is no longer someone’s sole residence represents a change of use—it becomes a commercial entity, not a home. That is simply a fact.

Michelle Ballantyne (South Scotland) (Con)

I am listening with interest and I have some sympathy with Andy Wightman’s position. The argument is that protection is needed, and I heard what Daniel Johnson said about the situation in Edinburgh.

Proposed new section 26B(2) of the 1997 act, in Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157, is about short-term let control areas. If those who support amendment 156 are right, the issue is about localism. Under amendment 157, a local authority could choose to designate its whole area as a short-term let control area, and people would have to apply for planning permission in such an area. Amendment 157 would support localism and allow local authorities to make the decisions, and the outcome would be the same, as people would have to apply for a change of use. Does Alex Rowley not support such localism?

Alex Rowley

I will come on to the specific point about Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157.

The fact is that local authorities require a strong understanding of housing need in their areas. It is right that they should know when a home undergoes a change of use and becomes a short-term let, particularly when housing is in short supply in many parts of our country.

We are proud of Scotland’s thriving tourism industry and we consider the room sharing and access to affordable accommodation that Airbnb has enabled to be a positive contribution. However, a high concentration of short-term lets in a small area can have a negative impact on shared spaces and community cohesion. Local authorities understand the crucial role that tourism plays in local economies and we trust that, when they form their policies on short-term lets, which I emphasise are separate from amendment 156, they will reach a balanced position that is in the public interest.

We do not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 157 and 159. The ineffective rent pressure zones are a case in point for why we should not trust ministers with such regulations. I urge the new SNP and Tory alliance to think again, to vote in the interests of the people of Scotland and to vote for Andy Wightman’s amendment 156.

Kezia Dugdale

I support amendment 156 and oppose amendment 157. I commend Andy Wightman for his thorough work over a number of months and years; he has done detailed work on the legislation and has taken colleagues with him. He has provided opportunities for briefings and has met the industry every step of the way—he has done a serious and thorough job.

Amendment 156 is particularly astute because it is not particularly radical. I urge members to look at the detail. The amendment does not represent a crusade against the industry of Airbnb or equivalent websites. It seeks to curtail the proliferation of commercial lets where we have allowed big companies or wealthy individuals to buy up properties across a city for the sole purpose of putting them on the internet for short-term lets. Such properties are not residential; they are businesses.

Amendment 156 would make no difference to and have no effect whatever on individual citizens who want to rent out their property for a certain number of days or months in the year or who want to rent out a room in the house in which they live. The amendment would simply curtail the proliferation of commercial lets.

I support the amendment for three key reasons, which I will run through quickly. Airbnb is causing misery to countless numbers of my constituents across Edinburgh—particularly those who live down at the Shore, on Leith Walk or off Easter Road, who are represented by Ben Macpherson; those who live in Portobello or Abbeyhill, who are represented by Ash Denham; and those who live in the Grassmarket or the new town, who are represented by Ruth Davidson. All those members will vote for Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157. There is antisocial behaviour in those areas en masse.

Another reason why it is important to look at amendment 156 in detail is that commercial lets are distorting the property market. When big companies buy up properties, that makes it harder for working people to live in the city. On the internet today, the monthly cost of renting a one-bedroom property in the Grassmarket or on Easter Road is £850. That is pushing people out of the city and beyond its limits, and that is all because people are buying up properties for the purposes that we are voting on today.

15:15

There is another reason to support amendment 156. Perhaps the whole point of Airbnb is to provide tourists who come to Edinburgh with the experience of a home and what it is really like to live in the capital city, but all that is lost when the system is commercialised in the way that we have talked about today. I say to Rachael Hamilton that, far from killing off tourism, amendment 156 would provide a sustainable alternative, because it would protect the means by which people can experience what it is like to be in the city as a resident and a citizen.

I believe that amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. It bulldozes right through the purpose of amendment 156 by introducing control areas and it kicks the can down the road into some grass called “One day, maybe.” There is no scrutiny whatsoever in relation to the size of the control areas, how they would operate and who would decide that. It is far too late. SNP members should be uncomfortable in their seats today in voting with the Tories for amendment 157, but some of them should be more uncomfortable than others: those who represent areas where working people are being pushed out, where families are being priced out of their communities and where communities are being hollowed out by a largely unregulated industry.

Amendment 156 would make a small but important change. I commend Andy Wightman for his work and I hope that the constituents of the members who vote against his amendment hold those members to account at the next opportunity.

Neil Findlay

Andy Wightman has done exactly the right thing on the issue and he has support from a great number of people across Scotland. He has worked diligently to address the real concerns that have been raised by constituents in areas where short-term lets are impacting on the lives of people in the community. Those issues are very real in Edinburgh. I doubt whether there is any representative of the city in the chamber today who has not had representations on the impact of short-term lets.

Short-term lets are an issue not just in Edinburgh but across the world. Last year, I was in Barcelona, where there is a massive movement reacting against short-term lets. Today, the Government and the Tories are coalescing to dismiss the concerns of the people and communities whose lives are affected by the sector. No one is saying that Airbnb and the like should not exist, but we have to ensure that they are regulated and that local authorities, who know their local housing markets, are the regulatory bodies.

Working-class people are being driven out of Edinburgh because they cannot afford to live here. Representatives of the city need to look at themselves in the mirror. I have seen at first hand the growing social movement across the world against such letting. That movement will come here and it will grow here. This debate is just a marker for what will happen because, the more that people are driven from the communities where they should be living, the bigger the reaction will be against such letting. The Tories and the SNP should take note.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I, too, thank Andy Wightman for his efforts on the subject. It is well recognised that he has brought his knowledge to the Parliament, which is to be welcomed.

In my view, Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157 is a wrecking amendment. Unfortunately, it prioritises—although no more than that—the tourism industry over the rights of individual residents. Rachael Hamilton wants to deal with short-term lets in pressured areas. However, the amendment does not affect the blight that some short-term lets have on residents who do not live in the so-called pressured areas. As we have heard, short-term lets can still cause immense problems for residents who are not in pressured areas.

I listened carefully to Rachael Hamilton. It has been made clear that the control areas are meant to cover pressured areas. Amendment 157 kicks the can down the road on what is an important issue that we should have addressed a long time ago. I was pleased that Andy Wightman addressed the issue, so it is disappointing that the Government, in coalition with the Conservatives, is going to push through amendment 157.

I have a sense of déjà vu because, in the third session of Parliament, such things always happened. I inform members who were not here in that session that the SNP Government and the Conservative Party always got together to push things through. [Interruption.] I am only stating what happened. Conservative members should take credit where it is due. In a way, I am congratulating them for the influence that they had over the SNP Administration. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear the member, please.

Mike Rumbles

I am astonished at the kick-back that I seem to be getting. The smiles from the front benches are amusing, I have to say.

That argument has been rehearsed in my office on a number of occasions. Mr Wightman will not shift in his opinion—I repeat, “his opinion”—on all this.

Let me move on. Separately from the bill, the First Minister announced a Scottish Government consultation on short-term lets on 29 April, which will run until 19 July. The consultation paper calls for views on the regulation of short-term lets to enable councils to control the number of lets and ensure that such properties make a contribution to the services that they use, with appropriate regulation and enforcement. The intention is to help to deliver our programme for government commitment to give local authorities the powers that they need to balance the needs of their communities with the economic benefits of short-term lets.

We have heard a lot today from Edinburgh members about what is right for Edinburgh. That does not surprise me in the least, but this is not a Scotland-wide difficulty.

That is why I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157, which gives different local authorities, and parts of them, flexibility. What is right for Portree might not be right for Caithness—as I have found out in conversations with members—and what is right for Aberdeen city might not be right for parts of Aberdeenshire. That is why the localism and flexibility in Rachael Hamilton’s amendment are needed. That approach would allow planning authorities to consider the impact of short-term lets in every part of their area, to implement measures where needed, and to exercise their local knowledge and judgment to address short-term letting proportionately. It is always frustrating when members speak out in favour of localism but, when it comes to the crunch, are often willing to vote against it. That does not wash with me.

I do not support Andy Wightman’s amendment 156, or amendments 157A to 157E, which would wrap around short-term let control areas to perpetuate the situation in which all short-term lets across Scotland would require permission for change of use.

Amendment 219 would bring the provisions of section 11B into effect six months after royal assent, and would leave landlords and planning authorities very little time to prepare for the changes, whichever version of section 11B is agreed to.

I therefore call on members to reject the amendments in this group that are in the name of Mr Wightman and to support amendments 157 and 159, which are in the name of Rachael Hamilton.

Andy Wightman

I am beyond despair at this debate. We have properties in this city, in Aberdeen, in Portree—I know that there is a problem in Portree, because my mother lives there—and right across Scotland for which people have not applied for planning consent and for which they should be applying for planning consent. Nothing in my amendment 156 changes the fact that they should be applying. It merely makes it easier to identify the circumstances in which they should, and it prevents planning officers from having to stand at properties and gateways working out who is coming and going.

I have two examples of unregulated flats in this city. One was occupied by an 83-year-old woman who is the last resident in her stair. She keeps her front door open—not the main door on the road. One day a naked woman ran in, followed by a naked man. They had sex in front of her in her living room. They were followed by another naked man who ran in and shouted, “You are in the wrong flat.” That is the kind of breakdown in social order in places that people regard as home that short-term lets are causing.

In another case, a fifth-year pupil who needed to pass her English exam to get into university got no sleep because there was a bunch of what were probably rugby fans partying all night in the flat above her. She failed her exam and did not get into university. That is why I feel passionately—as do many other members—that a more effective solution is required in the planning system, in which the means already exist.

This debate has been bedevilled by misinformation. Rachael Hamilton talked about flexibility and Michelle Ballantyne about localism. Nowhere in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the Planning (Scotland) Bill, or the 1997 act is any planning authority allowed to opt out of planning law. The flexibility comes in plans and policies.

I have in my hand a report from Glasgow City Council that says that an enforcement action is necessary regarding use of a “flatted dwelling” that

“is contrary to policy CDP10 (Meeting Housing Needs) and Supplementary Guidance SG11 (Meeting Housing Needs), contained within the City Development Plan, adopted in March 2018.”

Glasgow City Council has designated areas of the city—which it can call short-term let control areas if it wants—in which it has said that there shall be no short-term lets. That has been done through plans and policies. If Aberdeen, Portree or Paisley wants lots of those areas, they are free to have them. Nothing in my amendment prevents that.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Given that the minister has a consultation on this very area, is it not advisable to wait for the results and end up with a much better situation, as there is in Paris, where an Airbnb let has to be the main residence, is only let for a third of the year and has to be registered? Is there not a possibility that we could get a much better system?

15:30

Andy Wightman

I thank the member for that intervention, but I am not sure that she has read the consultation. It is on a proposal to license the operators, not any changes to planning law. The approach is just like the approach that is taken in relation to alcohol licensing: the first box that you have to tick if you want to have an alcohol licence is to confirm that you have planning permission for the premises from which you intend to operate. The situation will be resolved by the use of a more effective planning regime that determines whether those uses can take place and then by a licensing regime that makes sure that the operator is a fit and proper person. I welcome the approach that has been taken in Glasgow.

This process has been disappointing, to put it mildly. Promises to work together have been broken. In fact, I was told that Rachael Hamilton’s original amendment—amendment 1, which was lodged in December—was not even endorsed by her party. I first became aware of amendment 157 when it was handed to me by a Conservative MSP, minutes before I was due to have a meeting with representatives of the short-term let industry. Worse still, they had been given a copy of it before I had. I was put in the rather strange position of knowing nothing about what was in the amendment while the representatives of the short-term let industry, who had flown up from London, knew all about it and thought that it was a wonderful compromise.

It is no surprise that the Conservative Party’s tourism spokesperson had nine meetings with the industry and has lodged one amendment to the bill. I had six such meetings, during which I worked hard to find some changes that would address industry concern—

Rachael Hamilton

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. I would like to state that I have not had nine meetings with the short-term let sector, and I would like to see the evidence that Andy Wightman is using to suggest that I have.

The Presiding Officer

I note that the member wishes to correct the record. There are a number of methods by which that can be done, and they are open to both members. In this case, she has alerted the member to her feelings about the matter and it will be up to Andy Wightman to decide whether to take action.

Andy Wightman

I thank Rachael Hamilton for that intervention. I have examined the lobbying register and I am happy to share with her the nine occasions on which she met the industry. She has not met Airbnb nine times; she has met the wider industry nine times.

I worked hard with the industry. We were even at the point where we had agreed drafting changes, and then, four weeks ago, amendment 157 landed in front of us.

Airbnb, HomeAway and all the other companies have lobbied hard against the regulation of this out-of-control industry all across the world, and they have got what they want: an anodyne amendment that is worse than the status quo and which requires further regulations by ministers, which will no doubt be the target of further industry lobbying with the aim of watering them down.

From conversations that I have had with planning officials, constituents in Lothian and people throughout Scotland—including in Portree—I know that the reform that is proposed by amendment 156 would be welcome. Unfortunately, it has been sabotaged by an amendment in the name of Borders-based Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton, with the connivance of the SNP Government. Her amendment is designed to restrict my modest reform to short-term let control areas, which, as I say, would result in a situation that is worse than the status quo.

Michelle Ballantyne

I stood up before to say that I had empathy with Mr Wightman. I have read everything that he has sent around, and I had a huge amount of empathy with the issue. On a personal level, I debated with myself between the two options. However, the way that he is phrasing his argument now has lost my empathy.

Mr Wightman started his contribution by saying that what he is asking for already exists and that, under planning law, everyone who has a short-term let should already be applying to the authorities. However, if that is the case—personally, having looked at the issue, I do not necessarily agree with that point—the authorities have not enforced that. He is now saying that they all want the provision that he is proposing because it would help them. However, if, as he has been arguing, they already have that power, why have they not been using it? I am now thoroughly confused about what Mr Wightman’s position is.

Andy Wightman

I think that the Conservatives have been confused about this all the way along. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 cites 11 use classes of property, including businesses, residential institutions, assembly and leisure premises and so on. Short-term lets are a sui generis use class—they exist outwith those 11 classes. That means that, prima facie, they constitute a change of use, and only planning authorities can make a determination about whether that change of use is material, which would mean that, in all instances, a planning application is required.

One of the problems that we have in this city—I know that it is a problem in Portree, too—is that people are operating and changing use illegally. That is why there are so many enforcement actions. That is why Glasgow is doing what it is doing—and it is doing it effectively, because it has good plans and policies. All that I am arguing for, as Kezia Dugdale said, is a modest reform to remove the difficult-to-apply materiality test.

I will wind up. The short-term let industry has run a sustained campaign of misinformation and downright lies about the impact of amendment 156. It has frightened folk in this city and across Scotland who are just letting out a room in their homes into believing that I was intent on shutting down their enterprises. I know that, because they wrote to me with that concern. I was pleased to correct the record and say that amendment 156 would have nothing to do with them.

It is deeply disappointing that I have been unable to secure improvements in the planning system for those who are affected by the blight of short-term lets. SNP and Tory MSPs might be pleased with themselves this week, but I will continue to fight to defend the residents of Scotland in every way that I can.

The Presiding Officer

Before we move to the question on amendment 156, I point out that, if amendment 156 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 157 or any of the amendments to amendment 157—that is, amendments 157A, 157B, 157C, 157D and 157E.

The question is, that amendment 156 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 35, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 156 disagreed to.

Amendment 157 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Amendment 157A moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 157A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 34, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 157A disagreed to.

Amendments 157B, 157C, 157D and 157E not moved.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 157 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Abstentions

Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 33, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 157 agreed to.

Section 12A—Assessment of health effects

The Presiding Officer

I point out to members that the debate on the previous group was a long one and we are running slightly behind.

Group 20 is on assessment of health effects. Amendment 198, in the name of Monica Lennon, is the only amendment in the group.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests: I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland.

At stage 2, I argued strongly that planning has a unique role in protecting and improving public health, and I presented a number of ideas to maximise the potential of the Planning (Scotland) Bill to make a real difference. I successfully amended the bill to allow an assessment of the “likely health effects” of “national ... or major” developments to be considered

“before planning permission ... is granted”.

That is a requirement on Scottish ministers to make regulations, and amendment 198 is an add-on that would strengthen that.

Amendment 198 sets out what the regulations should take account of. I will run through that as briefly as I can. I stress that the amendment is about making sure that public health is central to the planning system. It would add to the requirements on major and national developments, and is not about small-scale or household applications.

Amendment 198 includes consideration of “walking and cycling routes”, “access to ... greenspace” and “play and recreation facilities”. I have lodged the amendment because the health of people in Scotland must be to the fore when we are planning our communities. I think that we would all agree that that must include physical health and mental health, and that it has to be done in a way that also tackles health inequalities.

What would the assessment do? It would look at things such as the provision of “infrastructure, including housing quality”. All colleagues will know from their case work that poor-quality housing, in which people are living in homes that are cold and hard to heat, that are damp or cramped or that have little outdoor space, can have a negative impact on health. Respiratory problems come up a lot, so that needs to be taken into account in large-scale developments.

On transportation, the requirement would be to consider active travel, “public transport provision” and “car dependency”. Members will recognise that the benefits of active travel go far beyond the positive physical impacts. Walking and cycling are good for our mental health, better for the environment and reduce transport costs.

Members might be wondering why we need amendment 198. It is because we cannot take for granted that those matters are being properly addressed under the current system. Last year, Scottish Housing News covered a report entitled “Progress on low car neighbourhoods in Scotland”. It found that housing developers are locking people into unhealthy and expensive car dependency by failing to provide infrastructure and failing to enable access to healthier travel options including walking, cycling and car sharing.

Access to healthcare came up a lot at stage 2; I know that it is important to members. When I was working as a planner and we talked about infrastructure, that often concerned drainage and roads, for example, and was not so much about healthcare. However, I know, from speaking to colleagues from across the chamber, that, increasingly, people in new housing find that they cannot get general practitioner appointments and that GPs are closing their waiting lists. That is why consultation of the national health service and the chief medical officer, which we discussed yesterday, is really important. We are not joining up systems.

Amendment 198 is about healthcare services and the opportunities that we need to provide in communities. We talk about building units—as house builders do—or houses, but what we actually need to build are communities. The amendment is about how we can build strong, resilient and cohesive communities that bring people together and create opportunities for participation, so that we do not see an increase in the social isolation and loneliness that exist at the moment.

Another healthcare issue that came up at stage 2 was access to public toilets, which some colleagues thought was not for the planning system to consider in great detail. Many members have raised the issue. Because of poor and limited access to public toilets, some people with disabilities are not able to get out and participate in our communities, and there are particular issues for women and older people. We want that to be looked at.

15:45

Amendment 198 would also require that regulations consider green space and children’s play areas. We know that access to green space has a positive impact on people’s mental health and wellbeing, and that play is vital for children’s development and wellbeing. The aim is, therefore, to put such matters at the heart of decision making in planning. We must give people the right opportunities to live healthy lifestyles, including making choices to cycle, walk, access green space, play and be active in their communities. Planning has the power to do that.

Amendment 198 has the potential to contribute positively to public health and to improve the health and wellbeing of all our communities.

I move amendment 198.

Kevin Stewart

I cannot support amendment 198. Its list of matters to be considered is too prescriptive and should not be set in stone without further consideration and consultation.

Stay classy, minister. I want to stick to the planning bill. I am sure that the minister has issues in his own group, but the bill actually matters—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Order, please. Let us hear Ms Lennon.

Monica Lennon

The planning bill actually matters to people in communities—some of them are in the gallery. I think that the minister will reflect on stage 2 and will know fine well that he was very selective about what he was willing to discuss. He had a closed mind on equal rights of appeal, which we will get to.

Monica Lennon

I know many planners who work across Scotland and they are more than capable, if they get the right guidance, of making sure that they hold developers to account. They can ask developers to provide information. Maybe the minister should have more faith in Scotland’s planners.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. [Interruption.] One second, members. I am conscious of the time and I am afraid that we are running rather behind schedule, so before we move to the vote on amendment 198, I say to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans that, under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the time limit by up to 30 minutes.

The Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans (Graeme Dey)

At the risk of incurring the wrath of my colleagues for the second time in 24 hours, I move,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes.

The question is, that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 198 disagreed to.

Amendment 128 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

After section 14A

The Presiding Officer

Group 21 is on renewable energy infrastructure. Amendment 199, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 203, 220 and 221.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

The aim of amendment 199 is to require renewable energy infrastructure to be included in commercial and domestic new-builds over a certain scale, as is highlighted in the amendment, after a certain date. I have used the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 definition of “major development”, which refers to housing, business and general industry.

Amendment 199 builds on the one that I was delighted to have passed at stage 2, which obliges local authorities to consider renewable energy in the formulation of local development plans. I am clear that in this climate emergency, it is imperative that the Scottish Government sets clear guidelines about what is acceptable in relation to how our dwellings and commercial properties are heated and lit. However, I have not gone as far as to lodge an amendment to say that every newly built house and commercial building must have only renewable energy installed, tempting as that was. That would be the obvious and logical next step, and nothing in amendment 199 prevents that from happening in the near future.

In relation to larger developments, Scottish ministers would, by regulations, require an application for planning permission for a major development to include renewable energy infrastructure. Regulations to meet the aims of amendment 199 would have to be drafted and laid before Parliament two years after royal assent. That would give the construction industry time to plan for the deadline, and sends a clear signal to manufacturers about where they should be going in the climate emergency.

The shift could be part of the just transition with appropriate strategic planning and relevant training strategies developed.

There is also a consequential amendment to make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.

The amendment is supported by Scottish Renewables, which agrees that it would give important support to small-scale renewable energy projects, such as solar photovoltaic and hydro, and Scotland’s renewable heat industry.

16:00

Amendment 203 would remove the requirement for planning permission for small-scale renewables. Certain small-scale renewable developments would automatically be permitted development and so would not need planning permission. For the purposes of the provision, “small-scale renewables” would mean renewable sources of energy

“including ... anaerobic digestion, biomass ... solar, wind or water with a total power output of 20 megawatts or less.”

I stress that the amendment says “including”. The crucial element is that it is an accurate description of what constitutes “small-scale renewables” from the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2009.

Ministers would by regulations be able to set appropriate exemptions, for a listed building or a property in a conservation area, for example.

The permitted development system is under the development orders that ministers can make under section 30 of the 1997 act. In terms of precedent, some amendments at stage 2 sought to piggyback on that system as a way to say that planning permission should be granted automatically or could not be classed as permitted development in certain circumstances. An example is John Finnie’s amendment 164 on Gypsy Traveller sites.

I have included regulation-making powers for Scottish ministers to adjust exemptions and circumstances as they see fit, and the whole amendment is subject to the affirmative procedure through consequential amendment 221.

Amendment 203 is also supported by Scottish Renewables, which notes that the small-scale renewables sector urgently needs attention in response to the closure of the feed-in tariff and the limited utility of the smart export guarantee.

I hope that the Scottish Government can lend a hand in this area. In this climate emergency, I hope that all members will accept the necessity of supporting this straightforward amendment, which would enable a speedy, reasonable and proportionate way for residents to transfer to ways of heating and lighting their homes that contribute to the transformational change that we all need to act on as we shift to net zero emissions.

I move amendment 199.

Kevin Stewart

The Scottish Government is fully committed to ensuring that the planning system contributes to achieving a net zero economy. Although I commend the intentions behind amendments 199 and 221 on renewable energy infrastructure, I cannot support the introduction of provisions that could add complexity and regulatory burden and which cut across the proper consultation and public engagement that is already under way. That engagement includes a review of the energy standards in the Scottish building regulations, and we are considering next steps to further enhance the energy performance of buildings, which will include investigation of the continuing role of renewable technologies to deliver new buildings that have very low energy demand and emissions. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcomes of the review with primary legislation that could not then be changed without a further bill.

Amendments 203 and 220 seek to impose a requirement on ministers to introduce permitted development rights for renewable energy infrastructure for both domestic and non-domestic properties. However, permitted development rights are already in place for the majority of technologies that are listed, and we have previously consulted on others.

Further, the amendments seek to introduce permitted development rights for developments that could fall within the category of major developments, such as a 20 megawatt wind farm. Such permitted development rights would remove public consultation, including pre-application consultation, if they were to be progressed.

We have already committed to consulting on a work programme to expand permitted development rights following this bill, alongside a sustainability appraisal that has been progressed with input from a wide range of stakeholders. We should not pre-empt the outcome of that consultation.

Through energy efficient Scotland, we are putting in place a regulatory framework to make it the norm to invest in improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions from existing buildings. We are also taking steps to strengthen our policy framework for low-carbon heat and will publish a heat decarbonisation policy statement and action plan in summer 2020.

In short, the amendments cut across a wide range of work that is already under way to support renewable energy infrastructure. I ask Ms Beamish not to press them. She can be assured that I will continue to engage with her on the issues, as I have done in the past.

Claudia Beamish

I find it perplexing that the minister has said that my amendment on small-scale renewables would, if I understand him correctly, make for more complexity. I am attempting to make things much simpler for people, particularly for the many constituents of mine who are off grid and want to move to low-carbon sources of heat and light but who have found that they would have to go through quite onerous processes in order to do so.

I do not really understand why the minister made those comments. I am hoping that he will make an intervention, to explain his point of view.

Kevin Stewart

Again, if there had been earlier discussion on the issues, we could have got it right. As it stands, Claudia Beamish’s amendments would make things much more complex in some cases at points where we want to get rid of complexity.

That illustrates why it is always good to talk at early stages about issues, so that we can help to get it right.

The Presiding Officer

I call Claudia Beamish to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 199.

Claudia Beamish

I will not press the amendment, because it is not something that should be voted down. I am disappointed by what the minister has said. In the lead-up to the bill, I have worked on other issues with the minister, his ministerial colleagues and others, and I would be prepared to work in that way again. Frankly, I lodged the amendment at a lateish stage because I thought that it was quite straightforward.

I am not prepared to have the amendment voted down. I will have dialogue with the minister about what can be done in the future.

The minister highlighted a point about the building regulations—I was keenly aware of it, which made me hesitate about whether to lodge an amendment on the larger-scale infrastructure that I have argued for. I am aware that issues in the building regs will be consulted on, and that gives me some cause for optimism.

Amendment 199, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 14C—Determination of applications: cultural venues, facilities and uses

Amendment 176 moved—[Lewis Macdonald].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 176 disagreed to.

Amendment 177 moved—[Lewis Macdonald].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 177 disagreed to.

Amendment 178 not moved.

Amendment 179 moved—[Lewis Macdonald].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 179 disagreed to.

Amendment 129 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 129 agreed to.

Section 14D—Determination of applications: brownfield land

The Presiding Officer

Group 22 is on determination of applications: brownfield land. There will be a short break after this group. Amendment 130, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is the only amendment in the group.

Kevin Stewart

Amendment 130 removes a section that was inserted by an amendment lodged at stage 2 by Alex Cole-Hamilton. I spoke against it then, and I believe that others now agree that it goes too far.

I fully recognise the importance of the green belt. Our policy for it is set out in the Scottish planning policy and planning authorities have a key role in applying it locally. Naturally, we would expect that anyone who wants to develop in the green belt would set out how their proposals fit with national and local policies, and the planning authority would take that into account in making its decision.

However, there are many problems with Mr Cole-Hamilton’s approach. It is very restrictive, definitions are unclear, and it could effectively ban all development in the green belt.

The green belt is important, but it is not a blanket restriction on development.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

I look forward to hearing the minister’s remarks to expand on his ludicrous claim that the provisions would lead to a complete ban of any development in the green belt. My amendment that was agreed to at stage 2 would merely force conversations to be had about the prioritisation of land use in any local authority area.

Kevin Stewart

That is not what Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendment said.

The green belt is important, but it is not a blanket restriction on development. For example, what would happen if someone who lives in the green belt wanted to extend their home in a modest way? Should there be a ban on sensitively designed car parks that allow people to access the countryside around our cities? Perhaps most worrying, it could lead to councils reducing their green belts and creating new, more flexible designations to allow for appropriate and necessary development.

I fully expect that, as we take forward our review of the national planning framework, we will have a proper debate on the future role of green belts in Scotland. I also expect that we will closely consider the issues of greenfield versus brownfield development. In the meantime, to avoid imposing on authorities, residents and businesses an overly restrictive and unworkable set of requirements, I call on members to support amendment 130 to remove section 14D from the bill.

I move amendment 130.

16:15

Alex Cole-Hamilton

Thus far in the debate, the minister has admonished several members for not coming to the table to discuss the workability of amendments that are before this Parliament. He said that my approach in section 14D goes too far, yet he has made no overtures to me to talk about making it workable or finding an amendment that would deliver on what I sought to do at stage 2.

I will take the opportunity to address a number of the points that the minister made in his remarks in support of amendment 130. He said that it would be impossible for somebody who lives on green-belt land to build an extension. However, my amendment stated that the developer has to demonstrate why it would not be possible to make that development on existing brownfield land—if a homeowner is looking to build an extension, and does not own the brownfield land that might be available several miles from their house, it would be impossible to build their extension on that brownfield land.

We created the concept of green-belt and brownfield land for a reason. The section that I introduced was in response to a problem that is particular, but not unique, to Edinburgh. Over the past decade, my constituency of Edinburgh Western has experienced a rampant proliferation of housing development, some of it on greenfield land and some of it on much-loved natural heritage land. Liberal Democrats are not instinctively or ideologically opposed to housing—we recognise that Edinburgh needs new housing and we support the growth of Edinburgh’s housing. However, it must be in the right spaces and provided on an intelligent basis.

Just two weeks ago, the SNP-led administration on the City of Edinburgh Council, along with members of other parties, green-lighted a much-unwanted development on the Cammo estate that will see a loss of much-loved areas of natural heritage. I should add that they are not green belt—but that is only because the SNP-led administration changed their designation in 2016. The garden district at the Gyle—again, green-lighted by the City of Edinburgh Council—will see the proliferation of 2,000 homes on areas that are already designated as green belt.

We need to engender discussions around the issue. We cannot have just a lip-service commitment to the idea of green belt or brownfield while there is no legislative imperative for councils to receive representations from developers as to why there is no way of building on a brownfield site. There are many deindustrialised areas in Edinburgh that are crying out for regeneration, and for the development of much-needed houses for mid-market rent and social housing. Frankly, developers are cynically not considering those houses, because they know that they can build mansions on greenfield land in my constituency instead.

I therefore ask members to reject amendment 130. Section 14D is important for instilling a conversation about the use of greenfield at a planning level. It does not lead to a ban on any development whatsoever on greenfield land. I ask the Parliament to reject the minister’s amendment.

Graham Simpson

Although I supported Alex Cole-Hamilton at stage 2, this is an example of where we need to consider what we have passed. It comes down to the words that are in the bill at the moment, which I will read out. The section states:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), where an application is made to a planning authority for planning permission for development on land designated as green belt land, a planning authority may not grant planning permission—

(a) if the applicant has not included in the application for planning permission a statement setting out—

(i) why the development cannot be achieved on land the planning authority consider brownfield land”.

So, let us think about that extension—how will that be managed? The section also requires the statement to set out

“(ii) the brownfield land that was considered and why it was not considered suitable to the development”.

The person therefore has to show that they considered a piece of brownfield land. How on earth is that achievable in the case of a small-scale extension or a conservatory?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

Earlier, in speaking about amendment 186, which related to section 1, on the national planning framework, I mentioned amendment 219, as it is consequential to that earlier amendment and to amendment 200. Amendment 219 defines “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” as

“the emissions associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of a development.”

In my view, that rounded approach is correct.

At stage 2, I lodged a similar amendment to amendment 200, but I have made adaptations following the minister’s comments. I have removed a reference to “major” developments, which is an improvement and will prevent duplication. As I said, I had a similar amendment to section 1, on the national planning framework, and amendment 200 can work alongside that. The duty in amendment 200 is placed on the planning authority.

Again, I highlight the context of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill and the process of agreeing a target of net zero emissions by 2045, and the fact that the Government and other parties have declared a state of climate emergency in Scotland. In the light of that, national development proposals must be explicitly considered within that framework. The long-term cost implications and climate change impacts must be weighed up against potentially competing considerations, which may well be more short-term economic considerations. That can lead to an approach that is more aligned to sustainable development and it can help to guide us to make decisions that avoid investment that will not serve us well in future and could well lock in unsustainable developments in Scotland.

I move amendment 200.

Graham Simpson

At stage 2, I attempted to get through an amendment that was similar to amendment 181, but it was voted down by mistake when Monica Lennon voted the wrong way—she later admitted that it was an error. That was unfortunate. However, if the amendment had been agreed to and its provisions included in the bill, I would have been proposing to change them because, as with the issue that we debated in the previous group of amendments, my stage 2 amendment went too far.

I have therefore brought the issue back in a different form. Amendment 181 establishes the principle that development needs to result in positive outcomes for biodiversity and should provide assurance to communities that decisions to approve development will be positive for nature.

We will not support amendment 200, in the name of Claudia Beamish. There are environmental impact provisions elsewhere in the bill—including the provisions that amendment 181 will insert, if it is agreed to. However, we support her amendment 219, which defines “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” as

“the emissions associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of a development.”

There is an example of a brief speech, Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Simpson.

Kevin Stewart

I supported amendment 186, in the name of Claudia Beamish, which requires assessment of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of national developments, as part of the preparation of the national planning framework. That is the right time to undertake such an assessment. To introduce the same requirement for individual planning applications relating to the same developments risks introducing duplication, uncertainty and delay. For that reason, I do not support amendments 200 and 219.

I support amendment 181, in the name of Graham Simpson. I lodged amendment 173, to provide that

“securing positive effects for biodiversity”

will be a key outcome for the national planning framework. In addition, our strong track record in Scotland on environmental assessment means that consideration is given to biodiversity, where appropriate, in determining individual planning applications. I am happy to include the additional wording that amendment 181 offers.

Claudia Beamish

I am disappointed that the minister is not prepared to accept amendment 200. If the national planning framework identifies concerns about the life-cycle emissions of developments, it is only logical and appropriate that those emissions should be assessed in the context of an individual planning application. The approach would put an onus on local authorities to carefully consider what they are doing in that regard. I will press amendment 200.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 200 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 84, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 200 disagreed to.

Section 14E—Conditional grant of planning permission: noise-sensitive developments

The question is, that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 31, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 131 agreed to.

After section 14E

The Presiding Officer

Group 24 is on access panels. Amendment 168, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.

Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)

Amendment 168 concerns the pre-application consultation process for major developments. As I am sure many members are aware, the pre-application consultation is often the starting point—a very important one—for making sure that what is delivered, perhaps months or years later, is suitable and correct. The amendment calls for access panels, where they are available in a local authority, to be consulted at the pre-application stage. That is particularly in relation to major developments, because too often disability issues are not looked at or identified in an appropriate way. Planners and developers will talk about wheelchair access but, as we are all aware, disability is much wider than that, and the issues are often not addressed.

Amendment 168 would help developers and those who have disabilities to engage properly in the process, and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say.

I move amendment 168.

Kevin Stewart

The Scottish Government absolutely supports the principle of disabled people being involved in shaping the places where they stay, and I have introduced an amendment to require planning authorities to engage with disabled people early on their development plans.

However, I cannot support amendment 168 as it stands for a number of reasons. As I noted at stage 2, access panels are not statutory bodies, and not all authorities have access panels that cover the whole of their area. Mr Balfour’s amendment would require consultation after the application for a major development had been received by the planning authority, at which point it would be difficult to make any significant changes. Applications for major development include engineering works and energy projects, to which access panels might feel that they have little to add.

I consider that engaging disabled people at the pre-application stage on the right kind of developments will provide a better opportunity for access issues to be considered before finalised proposals are brought forward. We will bring forward proposals for changes to development management procedures, including pre-application consultation, following the completion of the scrutiny of the bill.

I am happy to commit that engaging with disabled people will be part of those proposals and that the Scottish Government will certainly highlight the role of access panels, where they exist, in that process. I ask Mr Balfour not to press amendment 168.

Jeremy Balfour

I thank the minister for his helpful remarks and intervention, in the light of which I will not press amendment 168.

Amendment 168, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 181 moved—[Graham Simpson]—and agreed to.

Section 14F—Conditional grant of planning permission: noise-sensitive developments

Amendment 182 moved—[Lewis Macdonald]—and agreed to.

Section 14G—Conditional grant of planning permission: provision of toilet facilities within certain large developments

The Presiding Officer

Group 25 concerns conditional grants of planning permission. Amendment 132, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 133, 3, 202, 216 and 222.

Kevin Stewart

My amendments in this group—amendments 132 and 133—are just minor changes to tidy up the wording of the provisions relating to changing places toilets. We have also taken the opportunity to ensure that those essential facilities are accessible and publicly available. I thank members, including Jeremy Balfour, Mary Fee and Angus MacDonald, for their welcome input in relation to the issue.

The other amendments in the group have laudable aims, but they do not work in practical terms. I wish that Alex Cole-Hamilton and Claudia Beamish had engaged with me and officials on their amendments, as Jeremy Balfour and other members have done. At an earlier stage, we might have been able to agree on something that worked.

I will take Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 3 first. It would simply be daft to set standards for digital technology in primary legislation, because such technology changes extremely quickly. Fibre-to-the-cabinet provision, which the amendment mentions, is not even the gold standard today—Openreach routinely offers fibre-to-the-premises provision for any development of 30 or more houses, but that would not comply with the requirement that is proposed in the amendment.

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I accept that the minister might be speaking to my amendment in its original form, but, when I was reviewing the amendment for our worksheet earlier in the week, I noticed that there was an error in it. The minister will see that I have submitted a correction that means that, if my amendment is agreed to, it will require fibre to be taken to the premises.

Kevin Stewart

The Government is committed to ensuring that each and every premises in Scotland has access to superfast broadband, through partnership between local authorities, developers and telecommunications operators. We have provision in planning policy and in building standards to support that. However, operators have to plan their work in different areas, and imposing broadband requirements in planning permission could prevent the delivery of housing if the timetables do not line up. As I said, it is unwise to specify certain technologies in primary legislation, when things change on a regular basis.

Mark McDonald (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)

The recent development at Dubford in my constituency has been hit by the fact that inappropriate infrastructure was laid, which does not allow my constituents in that area to benefit from broadband internet connections. Although I am open-minded with regard to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment, can the minister advise how such issues can be dealt with better in future to ensure that new developments are appropriately catered for?

Kevin Stewart

We have to deal with all these issues through changes to building standards and to planning policy, and I am committed to doing that. However, setting out technologies in primary legislation could cause chaos as technologies change. If Mr McDonald writes to ministers about the situation in Dubford, I am willing to ensure that that will go into the process, so that similar mistakes are not made again.

On Claudia Beamish’s amendment 202, increasing cycling rates for transport and leisure is a key Scottish Government policy commitment. It has contributions to make to health and wellbeing and to combating climate change. We are putting £80 million a year into active travel, and we are funding cycling facilities in workplaces, public places and schools and colleges through the places for everyone fund and the cycle-friendly suite of programmes.

However, I cannot support the introduction of such detailed requirements in primary legislation, as they have not been subject to any assessment or consultation so that we can consider whether they are appropriate, the costs of the additional space that would be required and the possible practical difficulties that might arise. I appreciate that the amendment includes powers to amend its provisions, but I do not think that that is enough to justify introducing such detailed requirements at this—late—stage of the bill. Claudia Beamish also wants the provisions to come into force within one year of royal assent. That is very little time to develop and consult on regulations so that we get them right.

I do not support the amendments in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton and Claudia Beamish, and I ask them not to move them.

I move amendment 132.

The Presiding Officer

I call Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to amendment 3. He has called members’ attention to the fact that a correction slip on the amendment has been circulated to members.

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I apologise again for the error in the original drafting of amendment 3. I hope that members now understand that the amendment would see fibre optic cable taken both from the telephone exchange to the cabinet nearest the development and on from the cabinet to the development.

Members will see that the amendment is number 3, which indicates how early I lodged it. However, at no point have the minister or his officials attempted to approach me on the subject.

Amendment 3 is about future proofing. All of us probably have new-build housing developments, such as the one that Mark McDonald described, in our constituencies—developments that were built without adequate information technology infrastructure and utility provision. There are other provisions for utilities in bills. Through the test of time—

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

With a certain degree of trepidation, I will take an intervention.

Stewart Stevenson

I apologise for not raising the issue before now; I have only just read the amendment that is before us. It says nothing about what should be at the other end of the fibre; it talks only about what is at the development end. Therefore, to meet the requirements of the amendment, it would be perfectly proper for the fibre simply to go down the main road to the cabinet and no further. In that sense, the amendment seems rather inadequate.

Alex Cole-Hamilton

From the member’s intervention, he can have only skim-read my amendment, because it indicates that it would do both things. I advise him to pay more attention.

Amendment 3 is about future proofing. Kirkliston, in my constituency, was built without adequate broadband provision—to the cabinet or to the premises. For a community just 6 miles from this location to have suffered broadband speeds of less than half a megabit in 2016-17—when the issue was addressed—was appalling. It is important to put such things in the bill. For the foreseeable future, we are not talking about a revolution in technology beyond fibre optic. If that comes, we can repeal this aspect of the legislation.

Mark McDonald

Will Mr Cole-Hamilton take an intervention?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I am winding up, but I will take an intervention.

Mark McDonald

I am grateful to Mr Cole-Hamilton for giving way.

I was open-minded in relation to amendment 3. My concern is that, if we had been debating the issue, say, 10 years ago, we would have been talking about copper and exchange to premises, such as, for example, exists in Kingswells in my constituency. Retrofitting the infrastructure to ensure that properties there are adequately connected is now causing great difficulty. Mr Cole-Hamilton talks about future proofing, but my concern is that, if technology moves on in the future and retrofitting were to be required, residents and local authorities could be put to great expense to make changes. Does he accept that as a potential flaw of amendment 3?

Alex Cole-Hamilton

Every premises in the country that currently receives its broadband through copper will eventually have to have that retrofitted, with pavements dug up and the rest of it. We all accept that developers will default to the use of copper because it is cheaper, and new builds will have to be retrofitted when we roll out 5G technology. In amendment 3, I am suggesting only that we should future proof. This is an important step to take. It signals that we are a future-minded country.

The Presiding Officer

I call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 202 and to the other amendments in the group.

17:00

Claudia Beamish

In the Parliament, we are lucky to have the benefit of safe bike storage that is within the distance that I have stipulated in amendment 202—that is, within 30m of the building. It is, in fact, as we all know, under the building.

We have showers, we have what the amendment terms, in rather old-fashioned language, “water closets”; and we have hand-washing basins

“with continuous supplies of hot and cold running water”.

We have

“changing rooms provided with seating”,

“facilities to enable a person to dry any special clothing and any personal clothing or effects”,

and

“suitable and sufficient facilities to enable a person to lock away ... any clothing which is not taken home ... the person’s own clothing which is not worn during working hours”

and “the person’s personal effects”. We also have

“on-site provision and availability of bicycle maintenance tools.”

I have listed those facilities in my amendment. We have led by example on them and it is clear to me that other people should have the opportunity to have similar arrangements when they cycle, walk or run to work.

Access to good facilities is one of a range of measures that would encourage people to cycle to work, and I hope that members will support amendment 202 on that basis. My personal experience of being able to use the facilities in the Parliament has made a significant difference to my ability to cycle to work and to that of many other people who, I know, also cycle to work.

There are other issues, such as on-road, segregated cycle lanes, presumed liability laws, good cyclist and motor vehicle driver education and more, but those, sadly, are for another day.

Today, we can do something to enable many people who would like to cycle to work to leave their bikes safely and to shower and change as we can here, leaving towels to dry and locking away our kit. I have crafted amendment 202 so that ministers can alter the minimum number of employees and the arrangements that the amendment refers to, as well as the description of the cycling facilities expected. For example, I have deliberately not gone below 10 employees so as not to make the amendment too onerous, but Scottish ministers can make changes by regulation.

The arrangements are based on the Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method good practice standards, which are well respected and well recognised. I note what the minister said about bringing the provisions into force one year from royal assent, but, on the basis that we are in a climate emergency and that the BREEAM good practice standards are already in existence, surely that is long enough.

Yesterday, the minister made what was, frankly, a woefully ineffective and unadventurous statement on the cycling future. We have an opportunity to do something positive and robust that will help—let’s go to it.

Jeremy Balfour

I speak in favour of the minister’s amendments 132 and 133, which build on an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I also thank Mary Fee for her support on the issue.

The bill will do many things and, no doubt, academics, lawyers and historians will look back in years to come to say where it has been effective and where it has been ineffective. Although the issue of changing places toilets has not had a lot of air time—or, perhaps, hot air—in the chamber, I think that, when we look back, we will see something that will radically change how we see development over the next 10 to 20 years.

For people who are unaware of them, changing places toilets open up facilities so that older, younger and disabled people can use them, which we take for granted. When they are installed, the provision will have an economic benefit for the whole of Scotland; perhaps more important, it will allow families to do things that they are not able to do at the moment.

For people who are unsure what a changing places toilet looks like, we have the privilege of having one in the Parliament, and people who go to the Royal Highland show over the next three or four days can see them there, too. The organisers have taken the step, ahead of the bill, of putting them in, because they can see the benefit that that will bring them and the people who go to the show and other such events.

I thank the minister again for tidying up my minor mistakes. I hope that the provision will give a clear sign that Parliament wants families, whatever disabilities there may be within them, to be able to go out and enjoy facilities throughout Scotland.

Kevin Stewart

I have already paid tribute to a number of members who have been involved in the changing places toilets campaign. It would be remiss of me not to mention PAMIS, the charity that promotes a more inclusive society, which has been at the forefront of that campaign for a very long time and is finally seeing its efforts come to fruition—through not only the bill but the recent consultation that has been initiated by the building standards team.

Some matters are much better left not to primary legislation but to regulations made under secondary legislation. On the matter that amendment 3 deals with, Mr Cole-Hamilton has possibly got entirely the wrong end of the stick. Who knows for how long fibre will be the top-notch technology for people’s homes? I have no idea how that aspect of science is moving forward—I am not sure whether anyone in the chamber has. However, if a reference to fibre is put in primary legislation, it will be difficult to change it in future. In his retort to Mr Cole-Hamilton, Mr McDonald was absolutely right: in certain parts of the country we now have a situation in which it is very difficult for changes to be made. However, in a debate such as this, the one thing that I would never do is accuse Stewart Stevenson of skim-reading anything. He is a man who knows the minutiae of everything, because he reads the lot.

Amendment 132 agreed to.

Group 26 is on hill tracks. Amendment 14, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 15 to 18.

Andy Wightman

For many years, there have been concerns over the proliferation of bulldozed tracks that have been built without planning consent, to poor standards, across some of our most scenic landscapes. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Order, please. Will members keep the noise down?

Andy Wightman

A campaign by Scottish Environment LINK, led by Ramblers Scotland, has been running for many years, and they have undertaken meticulous and detailed work to catalogue that abuse and identify how to effect greater public scrutiny, oversight and regulation. They thought that they had some success with the previous planning minister, Derek Mackay, but he disappointed with timid and ineffectual reforms back in 2014.

A new report, “Changing Tracks: The case for better control of vehicle tracks in Scotland’s finest landscapes”, documents the on-going problem and the continuing failure of the planning system to deal with it.

I note that I have Mr Mackay’s attention. He will recall that, as the law stands, any private way, which is the technical term for such a track, that is built for the purpose of agriculture or forestry is a permitted development under section 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997—that is to say, the principle of development is conceded by law and there is no requirement for full planning consent.

I want to underscore an important point about my amendments 14 to 18. Not one of them affects the permitted development rights that exist for agriculture and forestry. I have decided to pick my fights carefully, and picking fights with the farming and forestry industries is not something that I have the capacity or inclination to do. They can rest assured about that.

Any private way that is built for the purpose of field sports, however, is not a permitted development and it requires full planning consent. In addition, in a national scenic area, there is a requirement that all private ways for whatever purpose, with the exception of approved afforestation schemes, need to apply for full planning consent.

In 2014, in response to public concern, the law was amended by Mr Mackay to require all private ways under the permitted development regime to be notified to the planning authority. They remain permitted developments, however, and there is ultimately no means of refusing their construction.

I lodged amendments 14 to 18 to provide another modest reform of the planning system by improving transparency and making some tracks that are not at present subject to full planning approval subject to such approval. None of those amendments bans tracks. Scottish Renewables is wrong to suggest in its briefing that the amendments would do that. All tracks that have been built by members of Scottish Renewables will have been through a full planning consent regime. This is not about whether or not there should be tracks. It is about the process and how much democratic scrutiny should be applied to proposals that have the capacity to be very damaging.

Hill tracks continue to be built for field sports, despite the fact that they require planning consent, due to a loophole in the law whereby the applicant can claim that they are for agricultural purposes, which would make them permitted developments. The applicant says that there are a few sheep on the hill. That is hard for the planning authority to refute, and it is extremely difficult for it to refuse consent on that basis. It would be most likely to end up in court if it did so.

That loophole is closed by amendment 14. It does not change the intention of the law; it merely ensures that the current system, in which field sports tracks are subject to full planning consent, will be respected in practice and cannot be avoided.

Does Mr Wightman agree that, if a planning authority is seriously concerned that the track is not being built for agriculture or forestry, it could call in a planning application and demand that the applicant make a full application, so that it can be properly scrutinised? Does he deny that?

Andy Wightman

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 203 disagreed to.

Section 16A—Call-in of applications by Scottish Ministers: further provision

The Presiding Officer

Group 27 is on the call-in of applications by the Scottish ministers. Amendment 136, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is grouped with amendment 137.

Kevin Stewart

Occasionally, there are reasons for the planning minister to call in and decide a planning application. That is a long-established power in the planning system, and it has been exercised by successive Governments. It is a responsibility that I take seriously and a power that I use very sparingly.

I fully respect the lead role that is played by our planning authorities and it is absolutely right that the vast majority of planning applications are decided by them. Sometimes, though, circumstances arise in which it may be more appropriate for further scrutiny and a decision at the national level, because in some way the proposed development raises issues of national importance. Those issues cannot be easily or comprehensively listed in advance—it comes down to the individual circumstances of individual cases.

Section 16A was added to the bill at stage 2 by an amendment from Mark Ruskell. It requires ministers to set out in regulations the possible circumstances in which they would consider calling in applications. I agree that there can and should be greater clarity of the circumstances that may lead to a call-in, but they can be much more reasonably and helpfully explained through the open text of a statement than in legislation.

Mark Ruskell and I have discussed that change. I am grateful for his input, and his agreement that the requirement can be handled through a ministerial statement, which is what amendments 136 and 137 do. I hope that members will support them.

I move amendment 136.

Amendment 136 agreed to.

Amendment 137 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 16B—Determination of applications: statement to accompany notification

The Presiding Officer

Group 28 is on the determination of applications. Amendment 204, in the name of Alex Rowley, is grouped with amendment 138.

Alex Rowley

Amendment 204 would require planning authorities to record whether a decision on an application complies with the local development plan and, if not, why that decision was in the public interest and in line with planning policy guidance.

Amendment 204 was submitted in response to criticism of section 16B, which was introduced at stage 2 to require planning authorities to state in a decision notice whether a planning decision complies with the local development plan. Such a provision is incredibly important in supporting a plan-led system, allowing for full transparency with regard to how many applications the authority has accepted that contravene the local development plan. It is vital that both the community and developers have faith in the validity of the plan, otherwise there is no incentive to engage in the development of the local development plan. The amendment would give that transparency, which is important.

I move amendment 204.

Andy Wightman

The minister’s amendment 138 would remove section 16B from the bill. Section 16B was added at stage 2, following an amendment that I lodged. Its intention at the time was to form a basis for triggering a reformed appeals system, the substance of which we will debate in the next group. Put simply, section 16B requires each planning decision to be accompanied by a statement that outlines whether the planning authority considers its decision to be in accordance with the development plan. Depending on the answer to that question, the relevant appeal right—which will be discussed in the next group—would be triggered. I do not expect that Parliament will approve those appeal rights. Nonetheless, regardless of the fate of those appeal rights, I urge members to support the retention of section 16B and to vote against amendment 138.

Like many members, I want a proper plan-led system, which Alex Rowley mentioned. In my view, the extent of discretion in the current planning system undermines such a plan-led system. I know that we differ on the extent to which we should have discretion in the planning system. Although I accept that there should always be an element of discretion, in my view, there is too much. However, regardless of where we stand on that question, retaining section 16B would enable us to capture statistics that would be useful in monitoring the extent to which determinations that are compliant with the plan are being made, and that would allow us to take a view on the extent to which we have a plan-led system in practice.

Alex Rowley’s amendment 204 amends section 16B in a manner that is not helpful. Paragraph (a) of the amendment merely rewords section 16B, and paragraph (b) of the amendment is unnecessary, as all decisions will anyway narrate in detail why they were made. I therefore ask Alex Rowley not to press amendment 204. However, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Kevin Stewart

I recognise that the real motive behind the provisions is not to bring clarity to the reasons for decisions, but to provide the hook for the amendments on appeal rights, which we will discuss next.

Superficially, section 16B on its own seems fairly minor and straightforward, setting out something that a local authority must state in its decision notice. However, when making a decision on a planning application, an authority must always have regard to both the provisions of the development plan and any other material considerations. That is a long-standing requirement at the very heart of our planning system, and the decision on every application is to be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Decisions on applications always involve the decision maker reaching a conclusion about whether and how the proposed development accords with the development plan; that is considered alongside an assessment of other material considerations to decide whether, individually or collectively, they outweigh the position with development plan conformity.

Authorities must already give reasons for their decisions in reports published on the register of applications, setting out the provisions of the development plan and the other material considerations to which they have had regard. Explaining only the position in relation to the development plan in the decision notice will not increase transparency—it will only create confusion by giving a partial picture of the reasons for the decision.

I note that Mr Rowley has attempted to address that by requiring further information to be included, but without using the term “material considerations”. During the passage of the bill, nobody has proposed removing material considerations from the decision process, and rightly so, so I am not clear why people are so shy of giving them their place.

For those reasons I ask members to reject amendment 204 and to support amendment 138.

Graham Simpson

This is where I part company with the minister. It had to happen.

Amendment 138 strips out something that we put in at stage 2. It is a very simple matter, with the provision that councils must state why a development is or is not

“in accordance with the development plan”.

It always used to be the case that councils had to do that. The requirement is not onerous: they have to give reasons in a decision notice in any case. I disagree with the minister: I think that it does help with transparency. Therefore, we will vote against amendment 138.

We will also vote against amendment 204. I think that Mr Rowley’s wording is not quite right and that his amendment goes too far. We will vote against both amendments in the group.

Alex Rowley

The minister made an important point in referring to the motive. He needs to tell me what he thinks the real motive is. The bottom line involves a front-led planning system that engages communities. Communities put a lot of energy, time and resources into it. Before the ink is dry on the local development plan, developers come in with applications that completely ignore that plan. That is why people have lost faith in the planning process.

Kevin Stewart

I spelled this out in my speech: the amendment is fine when it comes to whether there has been deviation from the development plan. However, if the material considerations that were also looked at are not spelled out—considerations that Mr Rowley does not wish to see set out—that is not open and transparent. That is why his amendment 204 is not right.

Alex Rowley

As it looks like the minister will lose amendment 138—we will certainly vote against it—I will not press my amendment 204.

Amendment 204, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 138 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 138 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 58, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 138 disagreed to.

After section 16B

17:45

The Presiding Officer

Group 29 is on the right to appeal against planning decisions. Amendment 160, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 161, 205 and 223.

Andy Wightman

As members know, there has been a long debate about whether to reform appeal rights. Given that the stage 3 proceedings have now gone on for six hours and 42 minutes, I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments in full, but it is important to put on record the core arguments at stage 3 of the second planning bill of this parliamentary session.

Current appeal rights in the planning system date from the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. At that time, applicants—who were typically landowners themselves—were suspicious of the ability of public authorities to make decisions about development. Public and local authorities had just been given the power to do so following the nationalisation of development, which the 1947 act introduced. Landowners were rightly suspicious of the ability and motives of the new public authorities, which now had rights in relation to landowners’ land. Because a person’s right to develop their own property was being removed, it was conceded at the time—correctly, in my view—that a right of appeal should be granted against any refusal to grant planning consent.

However, that was 70 years ago. Today, we almost have a plan-led system—we do not quite have one, but we are moving to one, and it is much more of a plan-led system than it was in 1947. There is no requirement for appeals to be universally available to applicants.

Equally, there is a strong argument for providing a limited right of appeal to third parties. The debate on third-party right of appeal has moved on since the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. It is now focused on equalising the rights of appeal, first, by providing a limited right of appeal to third parties and, secondly, by restricting the existing rights of applicants to appeal.

In a proper plan-led system—such things exist in continental Europe—there should be no rights of appeal at all. Indeed, there are none. The plan should make clear what is permitted and what is not. However, as we heard in the discussion on the previous group of amendments, we are still in the world of discretion, material considerations, unallocated sites and so on.

My amendments 160 and 161 are identical to those that were lodged at stage 2, which were rejected—there were three votes against the amendments, two votes for them and two abstentions by Conservative members. I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for allowing the amendments to come back at stage 3. We can perhaps resolve the matters that led to the Conservatives’ abstentions. At stage 2, they were unsure where they wanted to go, so we will learn where they have got to in a few moments.

Amendment 160 provides that, when a planning authority gives notice that an application is

“not in accordance with the development plan”

under the provisions of section 16B, which we have just voted to retain, the existing appeal rights of applicants would be removed. In other words, there would be no right of appeal on an application that violated the development plan. The right of appeal would remain open to applicants if a planning authority refused consent for an application that was in accordance with the plan.

Amendment 161 would introduce a similar right of third parties to appeal determinations when consent is granted to an application that is not in accordance with the plan and when a decision is made

“on land in which the planning authority has an interest”.

Amendments 160 and 161 are very tightly framed and, in my view, will build trust in the planning system and move us more towards a plan-led system.

This debate has matured over recent years. It is abundantly clear that the current system of appeals is undermining local democratic decision making by allowing legitimate decisions that have been made by planning authorities to be appealed, against the wishes of local communities, officials, members of the planning authority and the planning authority itself when they wish to uphold agreed plans.

I note that Alex Rowley has lodged amendment 205 on a third-party right of appeal, but there is no amendment on the existing right of appeal. Nevertheless, we will support amendment 205 if my amendments 160 and 161 are rejected.

I move amendment 160.

Alex Rowley

Amendments 205 and 223 would introduce an equal right of appeal. Developers and communities would be able to appeal when a decision was approved that did not comply with the local development plan.

On appeal rights, our guiding principle is that the planning system does not operate on a level playing field and that the system is in desperate need of reform. However, the issue of an equal right of appeal was a notable omission from the bill as first drafted. Our amendments would give communities a right of appeal when a development is approved that is contrary to the local development plan. Our proposals also seek to strengthen the plan-led system by limiting applicants’ right of appeal.

Despite promises that were made in 2006, the problem of a lack of community engagement in the planning system has endured. The Government’s review concluded that front loading consultation has not worked and, during the committee sessions ahead of consideration of the bill, the City of Edinburgh Council argued that our limited system of front loading has not been enough to generate community trust and confidence in the planning system.

If planning authorities are to create places that people want to live in, there must be early and meaningful engagement of communities and real community influence in local development plans. However, as it stands, early engagement could take place and be reflected in the local development plan, yet still have no influence on final outcomes because of developers’ right to appeal. Currently, the only route for the public is to take court action, but judicial review is too expensive for most people and can place a large burden on local communities.

With such a weak link between public input and decision making, and no mechanisms for the public to hold developers to account, there is little incentive for the public to get involved in planning. A local development plan-led right of appeal, such as we propose, would encourage communities and developers to get involved in the drafting, because they would know that they would be subject to the plan at the end of the process.

It is disappointing that the bill has made no meaningful attempt to shift some power away from developers and ministers into the hands of communities. That is an issue that we will continue to campaign on, because communities up and down the length of Scotland that have participated in their local development plan and have given up their time and resources to have an input into how their communities are shaped, find that then, before the ink on those plans is dry, developers have come forward, completely ignored those plans and battered ahead with their proposals. That is not right, and people who have taken part in the process have been left feeling bitter and betrayed.

Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

I note Alex Rowley’s comment about people being left feeling disappointed and betrayed. I mean no disrespect by the comments that I will make, but a number of years ago, as an MSP, I tried to introduce a third-party right of appeal in a member’s bill and the Labour Party opposed it. I felt quite betrayed by that.

Alex Rowley

In Andy Wightman’s excellent introduction to this group of amendments, he made the point that time moves on. [Interruption.] Surely, most of the members who are shouting and waving their hands, including Mr Dornan, have come across planning applications on which the community has had no say and is left feeling powerless. Just because some Labour MSPs years ago did not back Sandra White’s proposed member’s bill, I will not stand here and say that we should not get it right this time round. If we want people in communities up and down Scotland to have confidence in the planning system, we need to address the issue.

I understand that the Tories and the SNP are going to come together to block the proposals and will not listen to communities, so I hope that they pay the price for that.

Daniel Johnson

I speak on this grouping because the issues are of huge importance to my constituents, who have been in touch with me in huge numbers in advance of consideration of the bill. My constituents and people in communities across Scotland feel that the planning system is simply stacked against them. Indeed, at a local meeting that I was at recently, I had to correct someone who described the planning system as a marathon and not a sprint; the reality is that, for too many people, it is neither of those—it is a siege. Communities have to defend and get their activities and co-ordinated campaigns right every single time, whereas developers need to get it right only once. The experience of communities in my constituency and elsewhere is that they receive application after application for the same sites and they have no redress. That is why the issue matters. That has been the experience at Craighouse and it is certainly the worry that my constituents have regarding Midmar paddock and the fields in Liberton.

The planning system is not infallible, which is why appeals exist in the first place. If it is right for developers to be able to appeal planning decisions and to question decisions and the basis on which they were made, surely it is also right for communities to be able to question those selfsame decisions. This is not an unfettered veto; as Alex Rowley and Andy Wightman have set out, it is a proportionate measure to enable communities, with reference to the plan, to question decisions that have been made. As Alex Rowley pointed out, front loading simply has not worked. Ultimately, the measure is a way in which we can incentivise developers and planners to consult more adequately and to get the plans right, because they will know that communities have the ability to appeal. Ultimately, it is about upholding a plan-led system and ensuring that communities have a stake in it.

Neil Findlay

I support Alex Rowley’s amendments 205 and 223. It has been said:

“Following my involvement in a number of local planning controversies I became aware that planning was the root of many controversies not only in the area I represent but throughout the country as a whole. Time and time again applications have been approved despite considerable local opposition. Many of those involved in these campaigns, interest groups as well as ordinary folk, believe the system to be unfair and heavily skewed in favour of developers. They point out, rightly in my view ... the inherent unfairness of a system in which, developers have the right to appeal, when applications are rejected, whilst objectors do not have the same right when applications are approved. The imposition of controversial applications in the face of considerable community opposition has engendered increased bitterness and alienation with the political system.

To restore public confidence not only with the planning system but with the political system as a whole we must trust the people and give them the power to have a real influence in decisions which affect their local communities. ... I believe introducing Third Party Right of Appeal ... would be an excellent first step in this process.”

Those could have been my words, as they reflect my experience as an activist, a councillor and an MSP. However, of course, they are not my words; they are the words of Sandra White, when she introduced her proposed third party planning rights of appeal (Scotland) bill in 2003, which was sponsored by Alex Neil, Linda Fabiani and Christine Grahame. I am sure that, as men and women of principle and in the interests of consistency, they will support our amendments today. At that time, when I was an activist, I supported Sandra White’s proposed bill, against the Labour Government, because I believed that it was right.

Today, I will support amendment 160. I wonder whether those people, who now sit on the Government back benches, will stick to their principles and support the amendment.

18:00

Change is desperately needed. All the power in the planning system lies with developers, who have the money to engage consultants, hire PR companies, run pre-application exhibitions and buy off opposition. Developers have the right to appeal against refusals and often use that right; communities have no such right. How can anyone think that that is fair? Earlier, the minister referred to people’s human rights. How does the current system respect human rights?

When I was a councillor, there were 16 applications for large-scale industrial development in my ward in a very short space of time. There were applications for landfill sites, opencast coal sites, mineral extraction, recycling operations and numerous wind farms. Many of the applications were speculative and some were opposed by the community, with hundreds and hundreds of objections. They were opposed by neighbours, planners and councillors, but they were appealed and approved by reporters who were acting on behalf of ministers.

How on earth can that be fair? Every one of us knows that it happens in every constituency in the country. There is no level playing field. The cards are stacked against communities from the outset. It is unfair, it is unjust and it is wrong.

I say to SNP members today that they have a choice between siding with communities and introducing fairness into a heavily skewed system and siding with the Conservative Party and the big business and landed interests who want to keep things as they are, because it suits them nicely, thank you very much.

It is clear that there are many cosy deals being done on the bill between the Tory and SNP front benches. I say this: if members choose to side with the Conservative Party and the SNP Government over planning rights of appeal, despite the thousands of emails that we have had from people in communities who are concerned about the issue, they will pay a heavy price.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Third-party right of appeal is a perennial issue. This is not the first time that the Parliament has considered the matter. I am a veteran of the debates in session 2, when we debated the issue in the context of the bill that became the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.

At the time, we heard passionate speeches such as we have just heard from Daniel Johnson, Neil Findlay and Alex Rowley, on these very issues, but those speeches were made not from the Labour benches but from the SNP benches. Back then, we had a Labour-Liberal Administration in this place, which was strongly holding the line against calls for an equal right of appeal. In opposition, the SNP made the arguments for why such a right should be brought in.

I am aware of that situation. I could quote numerous similar examples, but I do not believe that an equal right of appeal is the answer. If the member will bear with me, I will explain why and what we think the answer is.

The other problem with an equal right of appeal, or even a limited third-party right of appeal, is the additional delay and cost that it adds to the planning system. We need to have a country that is open for business and for development. To have a growing economy, we need to encourage development in the right places. Members will be well aware—and will have been lobbied by representatives from right across the business sector—of why bringing in such rights will simply complicate matters further.

The biggest concerns that people on all sides have about the planning system are its complexity and the question of delay. The solution is not to add an extra layer of complexity and yet more delays into the system.

I do not support the amendments, but I recognise that there is a serious issue to deal with. We are proposing a better approach, because, in a short time, we will discuss amendment 146, in the name of my colleague Graham Simpson, which introduces the concept of mediation in disputes between communities and developers and encourages constructive engagement early in the process.

Neil Findlay

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser

No. I am closing my remarks.

That is a better way to proceed, because it allows those issues to be dealt with early in the process, rather than being tacked on at the end, adding an extra level of complexity, cost and delay.

I encourage members to reject the amendments, and we at least will be consistent with the view that we held in 2006.

Monica Lennon

We have heard a lot about power in the debate, and power is very much exercised in planning. On this issue, we know about the stakeholders, who have a lot of power and many rights, and about those who do not have so much or so many. We are here to speak for our communities.

We have a very positive and permissive planning system that approves over 96 per cent of planning applications. Many of us have talked about wanting there to be a plan-led approach, but as Andy Wightman has spelled out, it is a highly discretionary system.

In the debate around the bill, Labour has argued for a plan-led, rights-based system. I was not in the Parliament in 2005 and 2006 when the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill was passed; I was working as a planning officer then. A lot has changed in how we talk about community empowerment and in the relationship between local and central Government. We are trying to get away from that top-down approach.

There are people who would argue that there should not be an appeal system at all, but it is right that we have checks and balances. However, right now the opportunity for appeal rests only with developers, and communities feel that that is unfair.

We have put forward a proportionate solution, which is not about people getting to put in an appeal if they fall out with their neighbour. I am listening to the point about mediation, but it is a bit patronising. We are talking about big proposals, such as for incinerators. I know colleagues in the chamber—Richard Lyle, Clare Haughey, Christina McKelvie, Fulton MacGregor, James Kelly, Claudia Beamish and Aileen Campbell—who have had some experience of incinerators.

We have situations in which developers with deep pockets are able to make not only repeat appeals but repeat applications, and communities feel worn down by that process. I really do not feel that mediation is the answer in such situations. I am sure that my colleague Alex Rowley will not mind me saying that I take slight issue with the framing of the matter as being to do with third-party rights. I think that we should be talking about equal rights of appeal—Andy Wightman’s point about equalising the situation is important.

The point is that this is not 2005 or 2006. We have to think about how well planning legislation is working. I believe that during the passage of the 2006 act, colleagues in the chamber would, in good faith, have hoped that the proposals around front loading would go some way towards changing the culture.

Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)

Does the member agree that an unlimited right of appeal for developers actually undermines the good developers who are working with the local development planning process, are doing all the front-loading work and have sites in the local development plan to develop? Does she agree that it penalises private business, too?

Monica Lennon

Yes, I think that that unfettered right of appeal for applicants can cause a lot of delay and uncertainty, particularly for neighbouring sites, because the reality is that some of the appeals are in the system for a long time—years, in some cases.

People have heard me talk about the incinerator in Whitehill. That situation, on which we have had a members’ business debate, has been going on since 2013, which is a year after I became one of the councillors in the area. I have to say that colleagues across the political divide have worked closely on that issue. The late Lynn Adams, an SNP councillor who has, sadly, passed away, was instrumental in that work; she worked with the community, me and other Labour colleagues, and Margaret Mitchell, who I did not mention earlier. There is a lot of unity around the issues.

I know that the minister has heard me say this before, but how can it be fair that we have a situation in which these applicants keep coming back with appeals when the development is not in accordance with the local development plan or Scottish planning policy, which means that there is no local or national justification in policy or strategy terms for the applications? The remedy that is available to communities is to raise funds to enable them to go for judicial review, which we know is a limited route, in any case.

With regard to the Whitehill incinerator, the minister will know—

The Presiding Officer

I ask Monica Lennon to bring her remarks to a close.

Monica Lennon

The appeal has just been withdrawn. However, that is not the end of the story, because a trench has been dug and there is an existing consent.

The point is that, for communities, there is no peace of mind and there is no incentive to get back out there and get involved. If we want front loading and we want communities to genuinely be part of plan making, we have to get the balance right. The 2006 act did not achieve that—we have not seen the desired transformation in planning or the necessary resource going into community empowerment. I strongly urge colleagues to listen to communities and Planning Democracy and support the amendments in the name of Andy Wightman and Alex Rowley.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)

I had not intended to speak on these amendments, and I will try to do so briefly.

The 2006 act has been mentioned repeatedly in this discussion. In my first two or three years in this Parliament, I was a member of the committee that scrutinised that piece of legislation, and I well remember the arguments around appeal rights. Alongside colleagues from a number of political parties, I made the case that, if we wanted successful, active engagement, up-front community consultation and participation in the early stage of the planning process, we were more likely to achieve that if communities and developers knew that, at the end of the day, the community would have a right of appeal, and that we were more likely to undermine that active, up-front engagement by continuing to maintain the un-level playing field that we have at the moment, whereby the developer has a right of appeal and the community does not.

I suspect that this is not really a matter of disagreement between Labour and the SNP. I know that people have had a lot of fun winding each other up about the fact that the parties have changed their position, but I think that this is principally a difference between Government and back benchers.

I suspect that it will always be the case that planning ministers of any political party will find themselves under pressure from civil servants and vested interests and will say that appeal rights are not the right thing to do. I think that that is what happened to the Labour Party at the time. I suspect that back benchers of any political persuasion, who are more interested in representing their communities, will find themselves drawn to the argument for fairer appeal rights.

18:15

If I remember rightly, Pauline McNeill and Sandra White often found themselves on the same side of that argument against the position of the Government of the day. I hope that members who take seriously their interest in representing communities will continue to make that argument against the Government of the day. Since that bill was passed without community appeal rights, members across the political parties—including a large number of SNP members at public meetings and hustings—have said that they have not given up on the principle of levelling that playing field and that they will continue to make the case for equalising appeal rights, including community appeal rights.

Is the minister asking his party colleagues to break those long-standing promises that, over many years, they have made to communities?

Claudia Beamish

I was not intending to speak either but—[Interruption.] Members can sigh, but this is important.

Before becoming an MSP, as a community activist for seven years alongside an ex-mining village, and as a community councillor alongside Clydesdale District Council, I fought to stop an application for an opencast site. People were repeatedly worn down. That happens again and again. As Monica Lennon said, it can be a war of attrition, and it is between unequal groups. Often, communities feel exhausted by repeat applications and by the difficulties of raising money to get to a judicial review, as has happened in my region recently with CRAG—the Clyde river action group—and the application from Patersons Quarries for gravel extraction on the River Clyde.

Often, applications are made near marginalised communities, as has happened in the past with opencast sites. Farmers are worn down and, frankly, gradually bought off by the company. In a civilised country, that is not a place where anyone should be. It is shameful that, on this matter, the Scottish Government is not on the side of the people. An application for a development in the right place is nothing to fear. I feel sad that this day has come in our Parliament.

Kevin Stewart

The Scottish Government’s position on third-party right of appeal has been clear and consistent. We do not support its introduction, nor do we support any restrictions on the current right of appeal.

I want people to be truly involved in the positive planning of their areas. As well as having opportunities to say what they think, people need to know that they have been properly listened to.

Neil Findlay

In clear language, can the minister tell us what is fair about a developer having the right to appeal and a community not having that right?

Kevin Stewart

One of the simple things is that I believe in local democracy. A developer does not elect councillors. Communities elect councillors and the councillors take the democratic decisions that they were elected to take.

I want people to be involved. The bill already brings new opportunities—

Neil Findlay

Then the reporter overturns it.

Kevin Stewart

Mr Findlay was a councillor at one point. Obviously, as I do, he believes that councillors are elected to take democratic decisions. However, in this case, he wants to overturn the decisions that are taken by councillors. [Interruption.] I have had enough of Mr Findlay.

The Presiding Officer

Andy Wightman

I will keep my remarks short. I say with all sincerity that the continuing demands for equalising rights of appeal are designed not to increase bureaucracy or complexity but to strengthen a plan-led system. It is my view that, ultimately, as we move towards a plan-led system, we can abolish appeal rights completely.

The arguments have been well put and I am glad that they are on the record, once a decade, when we debate a planning bill. I welcome the passionate contributions from Monica Lennon, Neil Findlay, Claudia Beamish and others.

Much of the debate leading up to the 2006 act was concerned with the fact that the act would improve up-front engagement and community participation. Those arguments were used to refute the need for any reform of the appeal system, but that has not happened—very little, if any, of that has transpired. Therefore, the arguments that were made in 2005 remain as valid today as they were then, if not more so.

Murdo Fraser said that early engagement is important. Indeed it is, but how should we expect people to feel when they engage in good faith, and early on, only to find that a plan in the development of which they have been heavily involved, and which has been upheld by planning officials and by democratically elected local councillors, is then overturned by the minister? The minister responded to Neil Findlay by saying that communities directly elect councillors, which of course they do. However, as I have just said, we still have situations in which a plan is clear, an application comes in that violates the plan, officials refuse the application and elected councillors uphold the refusal—and then the decision is overruled by the minister on appeal. If we do not reform the system of appeals, we will undermine trust in what remains the slow process of building a plan-led system.

I will leave my remarks there. The debate has allowed us to have a useful reiteration of the arguments. Clearly, my amendments have not quite got there, but I look forward to coming back in 10 years’ time to see whether we might make some progress then.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 160 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 93, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 160 disagreed to.

Amendment 161 moved—[Andy Wightman].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 161 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 93, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 161 disagreed to.

Amendment 205 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 93, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 205 disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Before we move to the next group of amendments, I will call a short suspension for 10 minutes. I advise members that it does not look as though we will be able to finish our consideration of amendments at stage 3 today. I ask all the business managers to meet me outside the chamber so that we can have a short discussion about that. Business will resume in 10 minutes’ time.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 86, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 139 agreed to.

Section 19A—Planning obligations: publication

The Presiding Officer

Group 31 is on planning obligations. Amendment 140, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 141 to 145.

Kevin Stewart

I see merit in increasing the transparency of developer contributions, so that those who have interests can be better informed about the context of planning decisions. However, it is crucial that the system remains proportionate and avoids placing unreasonable burdens on local authorities.

New requirements were added at stage 2 for planning obligations to be published and promoted by the planning authority, and by any other person who is bound by the obligation. Amendments 140 to 142 are intended to remove the requirement to promote planning obligations, and will require that only the planning authority publish the planning obligation.

The planning obligation will need to be published only in one place—ideally, it should be found in the same place as details of the planning application, which are all held by the planning authority.

In addition to that, the duty to promote is unclear and could be burdensome. I think that we can find better ways of making sure that planning information is readily available to the public through development management regulations and improved online systems.

At stage 2, amendments were agreed to that would allow a planning obligation to be modified or discharged either by formal application or by simple agreement. Amendments 143 to 145 would require that any agreement to modify or discharge a planning obligation needs to involve all those against whom the obligation would be enforceable, that it be made in writing and that it be recorded, because it is binding on future owners of the property.

Amendments 140 to 145 are positive amendments whose aim is to increase fairness and transparency in the planning obligations system. I hope that members will support them.

I move amendment 140.

Alex Cole-Hamilton

I rise to speak against amendment 142, which is in the name of the minister. It would delete part of a change that I secured at stage 2 to do with planning gain obligations and how they are recorded and reported by local authorities, and how they are reported to the local community that will be affected by a developer. Why did I call for that change? We all have examples in our constituencies of developers making generous commitments to planning gain and planning obligations only to renege—for any number of reasons—on them, with very limited consequences.

I have talked many times in the chamber about the example of AMA (Cramond) Ltd, which built the Brighouse Park development in Cramond in my constituency. It promised that, after building many luxury homes—some being multimillion-pound homes—it would build a sports pavilion, but it walked away after development of the last property, claiming that it had no funds left to deliver on that commitment to planning gain. Nothing happened to that developer. Very few people in the community know that such a commitment was made. I add that the organisational memory of local authorities is only as good as the councillors, who might not be re-elected.

I want to retain the obligation on developers to inform communities of the expectation around planning gain, so that they can hold developers to account.

The Presiding Officer

Minister—do you wish to add anything?

Kevin Stewart

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 140 agreed to.

Amendment 141 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 19B—Planning obligations: publication

Amendment 142 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 107, Against 11, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 142 agreed to.

Section 20—Planning obligations: modification or discharge

Amendments 143 to 145 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Before section 21

The Presiding Officer

Group 32 is on the promotion and use of mediation et cetera. Amendment 146, in the name of Graham Simpson, is the only amendment in the group.

Graham Simpson

We have already dealt at some length with appeals and why people feel the need for a third-party right of appeal. We have voted on that.

I have looked at the matter and I have enormous sympathy with communities that feel left out of the planning system. We have a system in which applicants for larger developments hold meaningless, poorly advertised and poorly attended so-called community meetings ahead of putting in their applications. They tick a box and, when most people find out what is happening, it is far too late. Rows flare up, people feel let down and steamrollered, and nobody really wins.

That is what has fuelled the demand for equal appeal rights. I thought that there must be a better way, because if someone gets to the stage of an appeal, they are at the end of the line. Surely there has to be a way to avoid all the conflict that appeals introduce. At stage 2, I said that I wanted change at this stage. I have been looking at mediation and I have had useful chats with Scottish Mediation and others, including Homes for Scotland, which would not automatically be thought of as an enthusiast for this sort of thing. I have said to Homes for Scotland that it needs to think about why people want appeal rights and why they are frustrated.

We really need to address the issue, so I have come up with the idea of mediation. We should see it not as something to be used at the end of the process; it should be part of the process from the beginning. It should be used not once people have fallen out; it should be used to bring people together throughout the process. My amendment would mean that mediation could be used during the preparation of local developments plans, in the pre-application consultation or at the application stage—at pretty much every stage of the planning process.

We need to have a better system, in which everyone is involved in shaping communities to everyone’s benefit. I commend mediation as part of that solution.

I move amendment 146.

Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green)

I believe that Graham Simpson is firmly in favour of equal rights of appeal, but, although I understand why he feels he needs to—as he put it himself—come up with something, this is a feeble response. We need mediation only because the system is confrontational, and part of the reason why the system is confrontational is that it is not equitable. When people know that, at the end of the day, their views will be disregarded, it is hugely frustrating.

I got involved in politics, 30 years ago, trying—and failing—to save a local playing field. That particular developer used to write, naming me, in the local press—I was a private citizen. I am not convinced that mediation would have helped me, the local community councils that campaigned against the development or the folk who were around me. We raised £12,000 to fund a QC to fight our case, and we still lost. With the greatest of respect to Mr Simpson, it was not mediation that we needed, but an equal right of appeal. The amendment is well meaning, but it is not good enough.

Mark McDonald

I listened carefully to the points that Graham Simpson made. When we were talking about third-party rights of appeal—although they fell, I backed those amendments—I was struck by the fact that much of the objection to them was on the basis that they would increase costs and potentially lead to greater complexity and to things taking a greater length of time. Graham Simpson said that we could have mediation when local development plans are being discussed and when applications are being made. I question how much time, complexity and cost would have to be factored in as a consequence of that.

Beyond that, I am not entirely clear about how a system of mediation would work in a situation in which multiple individuals might be affected and might choose to object, but who would not necessarily do so on a collective basis. Many planning applications are objected to not by organised groups but by individuals, on an individual basis, who might not wish to enter into mediation on a collective basis. I presume that individual mediation would therefore be required, which—again—would be time consuming, complex and potentially costly.

If Graham Simpson can outline how the system of mediation that he proposes would overcome those hurdles, I might consider voting for his amendment. However, at the moment, I do not see how one can argue against third-party right of appeal on the basis of complexity, cost and time, and then propose a system of mediation that entails exactly that, albeit at the front rather than the back end of the process.

Kevin Stewart

I have received correspondence in support of amendment 146 from Scottish Mediation. I also note that the charity Article 12 in Scotland has recommended that mediation should be made available for members of the Gypsy Traveller community, so that they can gain equal access to decision making.

We will look to build upon the policy and guidance that are already in place. We will work with planning authorities, practitioners and others to develop the guidance. I support Mr Simpson’s amendment.

Graham Simpson

I will respond to the comments from Alison Johnstone and Mark McDonald, which were useful. However, it was inaccurate for Alison Johnstone to call the amendment “a feeble response”.

Neil Findlay

Will Mr Simpson give way?

Graham Simpson

I will not give way.

As I said earlier, to understand what mediation here is, one needs to understand that it would come not at the end of the process; it should be embedded throughout the process. It is not necessarily about solving disputes but about bringing people together to talk. If it was done properly, we could have a much better planning system.

Mark McDonald wants details, but the amendment does not set out the details; it leaves that to regulations. The reason for that is that we need to consult on all this and bring people on board, so that we have a system that people agree with.

I urge the chamber to back the amendment, because we will end up with a better planning system if we do.

19:00

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 146 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 110, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 146 agreed to.

Section 21—Fees for planning applications etc

The Presiding Officer

Group 33 is on monitoring compliance with conditions. Amendment 147, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 169.

Kevin Stewart

Amendment 147 removes the duplication of an existing power that allows ministers to set the scope and level of fees that authorities can charge for carrying out their functions under the planning acts. In fact, the current legislation has already been used to introduce a charge for monitoring surface coal-mining sites, which demonstrates why a specific provision is not required. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommended that the duplication be removed, and I am happy to implement that recommendation.

Amendment 169, in the name of John Finnie, would require planning authorities to include in their enforcement charter a statement of how they will monitor compliance with planning permission regarding major developments in their areas and how they will make the records available to the public. I believe that that is a helpful move, which would increase transparency around the monitoring of conditions on major developments, and I encourage members to support Mr Finnie’s amendment.

I move amendment 147.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I will be brief, as the minister has covered most of this. Amendment 169 concerns major developments and the principle that the polluter pays. For example, in relation to opencast mining in the past, East Ayrshire Council applied this method using section 75 agreements. It involves the public understanding that undertakings made by major developers are monitored.

I thank the minister and his officials for their engagement on the issue.

Amendment 147 agreed to.

After section 23

Amendment 169 moved—[John Finnie]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 34 is on training requirements. Amendment 162, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Kevin Stewart

All planning authorities currently provide their elected members with training, but it is not mandatory for members to attend and there is limited consistency in what is provided.

The training of elected members was overwhelmingly supported in our consultation, and many stakeholders were surprised that it was not already mandatory. I was disappointed that the committee voted to remove those provisions at stage 2. Ensuring that elected members are equipped to make decisions in a consistent manner is essential to maintaining trust in the planning system.

In seeking to bring back this provision, I have refined my proposal so that it no longer specifies that an examination will form part of the training requirements. I believe that there is agreement among planning stakeholders that the bill should make training a requirement for elected members making planning decisions, and I hope that members will support the reintroduction of the provision.

I move amendment 162.

Alex Rowley

We are happy to support amendment 162 on training for councillors, who have a huge range of responsibilities. Any support that we can offer them is welcome. However, the training must be flexible and it must work around councillors with a range of different backgrounds. It cannot become a barrier to having a range of voices in the planning system.

On a wider note, I believe that all members need to recognise the massive workload that we are expecting councillors to manage. Councillors might be on the planning committee, the education committee and umpteen other committees. The workload is increasingly making such jobs full time. The Parliament needs to look at that issue.

Graham Simpson

A similar amendment was rejected at stage 2 largely because of the requirement for councillors to pass an exam in order to carry out their democratic duty, which I thought was pretty outrageous. The minister has lodged amendment 162, which does not include the requirement for councillors to sit an exam. On that basis, we will support the amendment. The fact is that, in any case, every council offers training to their councillors on planning matters.

The Presiding Officer

Does the minister wish to add anything?

Kevin Stewart

I have nothing more to add.

Amendment 162 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 35 is on the performance of planning authority functions. Amendment 163, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 183, 165, 166 and 185.

Kevin Stewart

The performance of the planning system is vital. We are reforming planning so that it better serves us all.

Everyone deserves to receive a good service—from householders who want to extend their homes to large-scale developers and communities who want to be assured that their views are being listened to. How planning performs even matters to people who do not engage in the service but who benefit from what planning does for our communities.

I was disappointed that the Local Government and Communities Committee chose to remove the performance provisions at stage 2, which is why I have sought to return them to the bill. Throughout the parliamentary process, I have worked with members and stakeholders to build understanding and seek consensus where we can. I have listened to what people have said and have made a number of changes to the provisions, which now put a much clearer emphasis on supporting the improvement not only of planning authorities but of the system as a whole.

I will outline some of the changes that we have made. Amendment 163 reflects the fact that performance reporting needs to recognise planning’s contribution to positive outcomes. Amendment 183 would rebadge the performance co-ordinator as an improvement co-ordinator, and it would widen that role so that the person operated in the capacity of an adviser to all those involved in planning, meaning that everyone could play their part in a fair and effective planning system. We have lightened the provisions in amendment 165 to clarify the supportive nature of any assessment while ensuring that necessary improvements will happen.

We will continue to work closely and constructively with planning authorities and wider stakeholders to develop the framework for how performance should be viewed and how the co-ordinator will support improved performance across the system.

I ask that members support the provisions in their new, improved format and agree to all the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 163.

Andy Wightman

All the provisions in the amendments in the group were in the bill as introduced and were removed by the committee at stage 2. Today, they make their unwelcome return. We like them no more than we did at stage 2, and we will vote against all the amendments.

Amendment 183 was lodged after the Government withdrew amendment 164, which drew the ire of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It is worth noting the letter that COSLA sent me on 10 June, which sets out the conclusions from the committee’s stage 1 report. The report states:

“The Committee sees no need or justification for the Bill’s proposals on performance and recommends that section 26 of the Bill be removed. We consider that the Scottish Government should continue to work collaboratively with COSLA.”

COSLA said that, since stage 2, it has attempted to work collaboratively with the Scottish Government, but without success.

I am glad that amendment 164, which included language relating to corruption and impropriety, was withdrawn. Nevertheless, we see no case for the amendments in the group being brought back at stage 3.

Alex Rowley

We will not support amendments 163, 165, 166 and 185, but we will support amendment 183. It was a surprise and a disappointment to realise that COSLA was not consulted in the development of the amendments that were lodged by the minister, whose door is open to everybody.

The assessment of planning authorities’ performance and annual reporting is in the public interest, so it should be seen as an opportunity to champion the interests of planners, as much as the Government exerts its influence. However, the amendments do not have that effect. They are framed by what feels like the punitive ability of the Government to intervene and direct planning authorities when they have little or no recourse or opportunity to promote their interests. COSLA’s view should have been sought regarding how to do that effectively, but it was not.

As it stands, we support the creation of the role of improvement co-ordinator. We believe that, with the right consultation, it could become a role that could work with the planning authorities—not against them—to bring about positive changes in the planning process, which is in the public interest. Possible changes include promoting the role that planners play in public health and equalities, sharing best practice and highlighting issues in the planning system that planners should not be held responsible for, such as delays with section 75 payments and a lack of resources more generally.

I appeal to the minister. I heard what he said about working with COSLA and local authorities. He should have already done so, and, if he wants to get them on board, he needs to commit to listening to them instead of telling planning authorities and COSLA what they should or should not be doing.

Graham Simpson

We have already heard that many—in fact, all—of these amendments were thrown out at stage 2.

There are three elements to the amendments. One, which was covered by amendment 163, is the annual performance report that councils would be asked to produce. In itself, I have no objection to an annual performance report. Councils regularly report on things, and I do not see that as particularly onerous.

We then come to the planning co-ordinator, which is an extremely controversial role that members wanted to throw out. The Government lodged a stage 2 amendment on the planning co-ordinator that really got COSLA’s back up. I held a meeting at COSLA’s offices with its representatives and other stakeholders after the Government lodged its amendment, and I asked them to tell me what their concerns were about the bill and its amendments. We discussed the matter at length and got to the point where we are now with the Government’s new amendment.

I was happy to feed back COSLA’s comments to the minister—as we all know, he has an open door. I am glad that he has listened to what COSLA had to say, because he will now have to work with COSLA and others to develop the planning co-ordinator role.

The third element is the power to appoint someone to conduct assessments of planning authorities’ performance. That is covered by amendments 165 and 166, which would change the bill little from how it looked when it was introduced. The provisions proposed by the amendments are far too onerous. They would allow someone—an unnamed person—to go into a council and demand to see any papers that they wanted. They propose sweeping powers, and I am disappointed that they remain as amendments. I would rather that the minister does not press amendments 165 and 166, but we will certainly vote against them.

Kevin Stewart

I have listened to a huge number of the comments that have been made and I have made changes along the way.

The issues of performance and how we deal with it were high on the agenda for stakeholders and members of the public when we were consulting. We have an obligation to deal with performance issues, and I hope that members will support all the amendments in the group.

19:15

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 30, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 163 agreed to.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 106, Against 11, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 183 agreed to.

Amendment 165 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 165 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 57, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 165 disagreed to.

Amendment 166 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 166 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 58, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 166 disagreed to.

Section 26C—Chief planning officers

The Presiding Officer

We move to group 36. Amendment 170, in the name of Alexander Stewart, is the only amendment in the group.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The role of chief planning officer is a new one that the bill creates, and it was introduced by way of amendment at stage 2. Section 26C(2) sets out the role in broad terms. It is appropriate for the detail of the role to vary between planning authorities, given that one size might not fit all.

The planning authority’s role in the running of its affairs is to be respected. However, it is important to recognise that the planning system is Scotland-wide, so there is merit in a degree of consistency across authorities in their approach to planning matters.

It is therefore appropriate that the Scottish ministers be required to issue guidance on the role of the chief planning officer. That will ensure that there is some consistency across planning authorities, including on the responsibilities and functions of chief planning officers.

Such guidance might help authorities as they frame the new role for their organisations. Providing for the issuing of guidance is a more flexible approach than setting out aspects of the role in detail in the bill. Guidance can cater for a range of circumstances and can more easily be revised than primary legislation, if it needs to be updated to reflect the changing environment. I ask members to support amendment 170.

I move amendment 170.

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to support amendment 170 on the role of the chief planning officer. Scotland is leading the way by creating this statutory post and I have no objection to ministers being required to produce guidance on the role. Of course, we would do so in close collaboration with the profession, Heads of Planning Scotland and COSLA.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 170 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 91, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 170 agreed to.

Section 26D—National Scenic Areas

Amendment 11 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 88, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Amendment 206 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 110, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 206 agreed to.

Section 26E—Notice by planning authority of applications for listed building consent

The Presiding Officer

Group 37 will almost certainly be the last group of the day. Amendment 148, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Kevin Stewart

Section 9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 was amended at stage 2 by an amendment from Gordon Lindhurst that would require planning authorities to notify neighbours of applications for listed building consent in certain circumstances. It would also require that notification for listed building consent applications should be given to the same people in the same way as for planning applications. It is not clear that those two requirements will always be compatible, nor that such a requirement is necessarily appropriate. Listed building consent has a different purpose and deals with different types of work from planning consent. In particular, listed building consent is often required for internal works that have no impact on neighbours. Planning authorities have also raised concerns about the possible impact of the requirement; no fee is charged for listed building consent so, at present, there is no income to cover additional notifications.

However, I am happy to consider whether there are gaps in notification for listed building consent that we should fill—for example, for internal works to shared buildings. Amendment 148 removes the specific requirements and instead puts in place provisions so that the powers to make regulations about applications for listed building consent match those for planning.

When we review the development management regulations after the passage of the bill, we will consider and consult on whether any changes also need to be made to the regulations under the 1997 act. That will allow us to ensure that the requirements are appropriate for each regime.

I move amendment 148.

Amendment 148 agreed to.

After section 26E

Amendment 212 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 212 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 212 disagreed to.

19 June 2019

Third debate on the proposed amendments

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is the continuation of stage 3 proceedings on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. We pick up where we left off last night. I remind members that we have 45 minutes to deal with the remaining amendments.

Group 38 is on forestry and woodland strategy. Amendment 207, in the name of Andy Wightman, is the only amendment in the group.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

The third national planning framework highlights trees, woodlands and forests as economic and environmental assets. In addition, it reiterates the aim for the expansion of woodland over the next 10 years to support carbon emission reductions and wider land use objectives.

Current Scottish planning policy says that local planning authorities should do the following:

“identify woodlands of high nature conservation value and include policies for protecting and enhancing their condition”

and

“consider preparing forestry and woodland strategies as supplementary guidance to inform the development of forestry and woodland in their area, including the expansion of woodland of a range of types to provide multiple benefits.”

I am pleased to note that all planning authorities, with the exception of those in Aberdeen city, Shetland and Orkney, have such a strategy already. Councils such as Highland Council have sophisticated strategies; Highland Council’s is in its second or perhaps its third iteration. The three councils that do not have strategies do, however, have supplementary guidance.

Amendment 207 requires all planning authorities

“to prepare a forestry and woodland strategy”.

Importantly, that requirement is to be fulfilled as the authority sees fit, provided that it covers the key elements in subsection (2) of the amendment. Given that planning authorities already publish either a strategy or supplementary guidance, the amendment merely gives those a statutory footing and ensures that they will continue to be produced.

I move amendment 207.

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Andy Wightman’s amendment 207 is really useful. It says that planning authorities

“are to prepare a forestry and woodland strategy”,

that they should

“identify woodlands of high nature conservation value in”

their area and that they are to

“set out the planning authority’s policies and proposals in their area, as to—

(i) the development of forestry and woodlands,

(ii) the protection and enhancement of woodlands”.

As a member of the Woodland Trust and the species champion for the holly tree, I welcome this addition to planning law. I want to see woods and forests protected. If there is a climate emergency, as the First Minister says, our planning system should not be making it easy to chop down trees. We need more of them, not fewer, and we should plan for that. I say “Well done” to Mr Wightman for introducing amendment 207. We shall be whole-hearted supporters of it.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

Forestry and woodlands are an integral part of both our urban and our rural landscapes. I agree that it is important that strategies are prepared for their protection, enhancement and resilience. The amendment will introduce a requirement for planning authorities to prepare and consult on forestry and woodland strategies for their areas or, in collaboration with other authorities, across a wider area. However, that is not new. Strategies are already prepared as a matter of course by the majority of our planning authorities, as Mr Wightman pointed out, either singly or in collaboration, as is encouraged by Scottish planning policy and guidance in “The right tree in the right place”.

Amendment 207 takes that position a step further, and I agree that the time is right to do so in the context of recent changes that have been made through the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, through the new Scottish forestry strategy and in response to climate change. I thank Mr Wightman for working with us on the subject, and I am happy to support his amendment.

The Presiding Officer

I call Mr Wightman to wind up.

Andy Wightman

I have nothing to add other than that I welcome members’ support.

Amendment 207 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 39 is on mineral and peat working. Amendment 208, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 209 to 211.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

This suite of complementary amendments would update and modernise the planning system in relation to Scotland’s peatlands. That special habitat’s importance has grown in recent years because of its capacity to be a vital natural carbon sink. Members will recall that I spoke to similar amendments at stage 2 but, after listening to the minister’s concerns, I did not press them.

I thank the minister for discussing the stage 3 amendments with me; I have also had support from civil servants, including Andy Kinnaird. After further work, I remain convinced that the system of permissions and extraction rights for the habitat is out of date and no longer fit for purpose. I intend to listen carefully to what the minister says before I decide whether to press the amendments.

Many local authorities do not have comprehensive information about existing permissions, never mind the fact that many permissions should not exist at all in the context of Scotland’s climate emergency. I commend the Scottish Government for giving a high priority to phasing out peat use and peat extraction, in recognition of their significant climate change impacts and of the adverse effects on water and wildlife from damaged peatlands.

However, about 500,000m³ of peat is still extracted annually in Scotland. That removes a carbon store that takes thousands of years to form and results in the loss of almost all biodiversity value on the sites involved and in changes to hydrology that can have negative effects on flood management for our communities and populations. The Scottish Government is right to spend millions of pounds per annum on the peatland action fund to restore degraded peatlands across Scotland, so it surely makes sense, for coherent policy, to prevent the degradation of further sites, whose restoration costs could well lie with the public purse.

At stage 2, a target of net zero emissions by 2045 has been accepted for the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. The word “net” is important. The United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change’s advice on net zero targets says that it is

“confident that Scotland could feasibly achieve”

a higher target than the rest of the UK because of its greater sequestration capabilities.

Given increasing global recognition of the need for carbon reductions from land use activity, the proposals in the amendments would offer a relatively quick and cost-effective opportunity to address the issue in the public interest. The Scottish Government supports the UK Government’s target for retail soil supplies to be peat free by 2020 and for commercial horticulture to end the use of peat by 2030. The Scottish Government has also set a target of restoring 250,000 hectares of peatland by 2030. The amendments are entirely in line with that policy position, so I want to know clearly whether the minister thinks that amendment 208 should be pressed and the other amendments moved.

I hope that members will bear with me as I discuss these technical amendments in turn. Whether or not I move them all, it is important to put the issues on the record, so that we can move forward together as a Parliament, with the Scottish Government in the lead—particularly if I do not press all the amendments.

Amendment 208 would allow planning authorities to impose nature conservation as a recognised aftercare condition. Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 sets out three uses—for agriculture, forestry and amenity. A note from the Scottish Government on the amendment, for which I thank the minister, explained that the 1997 act defines a use for amenity as meaning that the land is

“suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs or other plants”,

which is dealt with in planning advice note 64, on the reclamation of surface mineral workings. That is welcome, but the critical omission from the list in schedule 3 is peatland restoration. Amendment 208 would remedy that by introducing a broader definition.

Planning advice note 64 was up for consultation and revision in 2015 and has not been updated since January 2017. Can the minister confirm whether he still intends to update PAN 64, as recommended by the opencast coal review? Will he commit to consulting on the adequacy of the advice on aftercare and the priority that is given to nature conservation, particularly if amendment 208 is withdrawn?

I highlight that, since stage 2, on the advice of the minister, I have edited the amendment that I lodged then to remove the involvement of Scottish Natural Heritage. I will not go into the details of that, but it is appropriate, because SNH has only an advisory role. The amendment is reasonable, given the environmental and climate emergency. The Scottish Parliament information centre has confirmed that the amendment would strengthen the status of nature conservation, particularly in light of developments in understanding about the importance of peatland and other issues that I have highlighted. For a number of mineral extraction sites, nature conservation is indeed the most appropriate and locally desirable afteruse. If I withdraw amendment 208, I urge the Scottish Government and members across the chamber to take forward the issues that are raised in it.

I come to amendments 209 to 211. Following comments from the minister at stage 2, I altered the similar amendments that I lodged then to limit their scope to peatlands, rather than all mineral extractions. There are two difficulties. The onus is wholly on planning authorities to monitor whether sites are lying dormant, and the power does not prevent operators from leaving sites dormant for years and then restarting operations without input from the planning authority. Under amendment 209, where an operator has left a site dormant and ceased operations for two years or more, the planning permission would automatically be suspended and the operator would need to proactively apply to the planning authority to resume operations. That would rebalance the situation and would put some onus on operators to keep their permissions up to date, and it would improve the ability of planning authorities to become aware of dormant sites. However, there may be a different solution to that issue.

Amendment 210 would introduce a sunset clause. It aims to simplify and clarify the process of the review of old mineral permissions by introducing a sunset clause for all old peat extraction consents, setting a time by which they must all be reactivated or they will permanently expire. Current permission periods are lengthy and poorly regulated. I will not go into the detail but, in the 23 years for which the processes have been in place, there has been ample opportunity for site operators and local authorities to make use of them. However, in a report in 2003, which was a significant number of years ago, SNH struggled to draw conclusions about progress with ROMP, having encountered difficulties obtaining information from local authorities.

That is another concern. The Environment Act 1995 introduced a requirement for the periodic review of mineral permissions, but only 15 sites are known to have gone through that review process, and there is no penalty or mechanism to enforce those statutory requirements. I would appreciate hearing from the minister whether a more robust mechanism might be put in place. It tends to be developers that trigger the process voluntarily. There is no centrally available information on sites where planning permission has ceased to have effect, and existing planning permissions act as a barrier to obtaining funding for restoration through mechanisms such as peatland action.

The bill presents a logical opportunity to simplify those procedures and to align planning with other areas of Government policy on peatland. Setting a clear end date for old planning permissions by introducing a sunset clause for extraction permissions would deliver that. Under amendment 210, all companies that have consents in the phase II and III lists or sites that were consented before 1982 would need to reactivate them—which seems a reasonable stipulation, considering how long ago that was—by a fixed national date or lose the consent permanently, although restoration and aftercare conditions would still apply.

That would remove long-term uncertainty around the status of the carbon in the soils and it would remove the burden on local authorities to instigate the process, thereby overcoming issues with lack of enforcement and clear data collection. The sunset clause does not pose a risk of encouraging developers to start production at unworked sites with old permissions, as it would simply require companies to reactivate consents.

14:15

Some members will be relieved to hear that we have come to the final amendment in the group. Amendment 211 clarifies that any calculation of compensation for restrictions on working rights for peat extraction should assume that there will be no UK “market for horticultural peat”—I will not repeat the dates. That would give planning authorities the confidence to consider restricting working rights in strategically important areas to allow for peatland restoration, because authorities would have greater clarity on the scope of possible compensation claims. Amendment 211 would not result in a ban on the sale of the products, but it would prevent peat extraction sites from claiming compensation on the assumption that there will still be markets for the products beyond the dates specified. Rather, the damaging products will have been phased out.

There is a presumption against new commercial peat extraction in the planning permission system and, in particular, in planning policy. Schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 allows local authorities to order that mineral extraction be discontinued if that is in the interest of their districts, but any such order could trigger a claim for compensation by the holder of the extraction rights. Schedule 10 to the 1997 act, on periodic review of planning permissions, provides that compensation provisions are applicable when working rights to mineral extraction are restricted as a result of new conditions, except those relating to restoration and aftercare. In practice, that provision has been cited as a deterrent to planning authorities considering limiting the length or size of peat extraction sites, even when the peat extraction is clearly not in local interests or in the interests of meeting biodiversity targets. I gave an example at stage 2, so I will not go into details. Auchencorth Moss in Midlothian, in my region, is one such example. RSPB Scotland states that the site accounts for an enormous one fifth of Scotland’s total carbon emissions from peat extraction, and it is adjacent to a site of special scientific interest. I will not go into more detail, but the site is very precious.

I thank the minister for meeting me to discuss my amendments and for sending over information. I understand that the Government has concerns about amendment 211 in relation to the European convention on human rights, and I will listen carefully to the minister’s response.

However, there is clear public interest in ensuring that peatlands are safeguarded, and that there is a more transparent and realistic basis for compensation claims to prevent instances such as the one that I have highlighted from taking place. The Scottish Government has supported targets for ending horticultural peat sales, due to a significantly increased understanding of the importance of protecting and restoring peatlands for reasons relating to carbon and the wider ecosystem. I very much hope that the minister will consider those points.

I thank those members who have been able to listen for listening.

I move amendment 208.

The Presiding Officer

I say not only to Ms Beamish but to other members that these are the sort of detailed arguments that should be explored at stage 2 of a bill. I do not want to diminish the arguments that Ms Beamish has made in any way. She made it clear that she wanted to put her arguments on the record and I will certainly not curtail the speech of any member who wishes to do so. However, it is disappointing that there is such a level of detail at stage 3. I note that, already, the chances of keeping to our timetable this afternoon have been highly diminished. I make that point not only to Ms Beamish but to all members.

Kevin Stewart

I am very grateful to Ms Beamish for the co-operation that there has been. I really appreciate the fact that she mentioned Andy Kinnaird, the bill team manager, who has been a stalwart during the bill’s progress and has helped a great deal.

The Scottish Government recognises and supports the need to phase out the use of peat as part of our ambitions for tackling climate change and promoting peatland restoration. However, I cannot accept Ms Beamish’s amendments, given that there are already mechanisms in place to ensure that such issues can be addressed in a proportionate and fair way. Such mechanisms include existing order-making powers in the 1997 act, which allow planning authorities to deal with issues relating to dormant mineral sites, and a range of policy initiatives to phase out the use of peat in horticulture.

I want to avoid putting additional provisions into the bill when they are already addressed elsewhere. In particular, I am very cautious about forcing all existing sites to close without further consideration of the environmental and compensation consequences. In her speech, Ms Beamish mentioned the peatland restoration fund. Her amendments have the potential to require significant compensation or to prompt legal action from companies seeking compensation. The Government considers that funding would be more effectively spent on the peatland restoration fund. I know that Ms Beamish does not necessarily disagree with that.

Although I cannot support the amendments, I appreciate that Ms Beamish has highlighted very important issues around Scotland’s peatland. The Government recognised them and, in a much earlier group, lodged our own amendment to the bill to place a requirement on Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of preserving peatland when preparing the national planning framework.

Ms Beamish can be assured that when we look at that framework, which we will move on to next, I will pay due attention to what we do in those areas. I know that she will be at me if I do not—and I welcome that.

I am more than willing to look at the current wording of the advice notes that Ms Beamish mentioned, and at whether they require the updating that she referred to. I am happy to have further conversations with her on that.

What we have done reinforces our commitment to ensuring that planning policies on peat extraction are considered in the context of climate change, and I know that Ms Beamish will continue to scrutinise how we move forward on all of those issues. My door is always open.

Claudia Beamish

As I make a final decision on whether to press the amendments, will the minister clarify the situation in relation to those very long-term, outstanding sites, around which there is a lot of uncertainty and a lack of clarity on what the local government relevant planning authorities are doing? Is it possible for him to highlight the issue to local authorities, because if I do not move the amendments, the possibility of restarting sites is a serious concern?

Kevin Stewart

I am happy to talk to local authorities about the issue. There is no problem in that. I would be concerned about the possible compensation consequences. Ultimately, that is where we need to consider the right choice. I would rather spend money on peatland restoration than on compensation, but I am happy to discuss those matters with local authorities.

The Presiding Officer

There are no other members who wish to contribute. I ask Claudia Beamish to wind up, and to decide whether to press or withdraw the amendments in her name.

Claudia Beamish

I do not intend to press amendments 208 to 211 today. It has been a very difficult decision. A range of non-governmental organisations have had serious concerns about the protections for peatlands in the bill. RSPB Scotland was one that helped to shape the amendments—but certainly not the only one. There is a serious issue around aftercare. We have seen what happened with the opencast industry. It is very important that conservation and those aspects of aftercare are looked at more carefully, so that communities benefit through access to the countryside and better mental health, and most importantly, so that carbon sequestration can happen.

It is also important that those issues are more carefully enshrined in the review of the national planning policy framework, and I would be pleased to work with the minister and others on that.

As I said, I do not intend to press my amendments in this group. However, as a final point, I think it strange that, given that peat will have no market value after a certain date, there should be concern about potential compensation.

Amendment 208, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 209 to 211 not moved.

Section 29—Interpretation of Part and schedule

The Presiding Officer

Group 40 is on the infrastructure levy. Amendment 213, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 214, 149, 218 and 150.

Claudia Beamish

Members will be pleased to hear that I have a short set of speaking notes for this group.

Members: Hurray!

Claudia Beamish

Hurray—yes, absolutely. My amendment 213 would add “green and blue infrastructure” to the infrastructure list in section 29. Amendment 214 defines green and blue infrastructure as

“features of the natural and built environments (including water) that provide a range of ecosystem and social benefits”.

At stage 2, members may recall that I lodged a similar amendment, which would have added “nature conservation management measures” to that list. The minister explained that those liable to pay the levy do not want the definition widened too far and that nature conservation measures would not help the levy’s key aim of enabling infrastructure capacity issues to be addressed to allow development.

I have reworked my stage 2 amendment, to bring natural solutions out of the environment silo. Green and blue infrastructure gives scope for infrastructure that helps to address environmental concerns, such as flood defences, water supply, loss of public green space, climate change, and protection of biodiversity and the wider environment.

The policy memorandum states that the levy should capture land value uplift for public benefit. In that context, the preventative spend angle of the projects should not be disregarded, particularly given that many parts of south Scotland and beyond faced flood warnings only a few weeks ago. Using the levy in that way would contribute to meeting Scotland’s commitment to the United Nation’s sustainable development goals, in particular the UN target to decouple economic development from environmental degradation.

If the infrastructure levy is to achieve its objectives and deliver offsetting public benefits, it must directly address the accumulating public costs of development and economic activity. It is difficult to see how that can realistically be achieved without new investment in green and blue infrastructure, which could offset those costs.

In the face of the climate and environment emergency, I hope that members across the chamber will support my amendments.

I move amendment 213.

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

The bill does not currently contain provision on the application of the infrastructure levy to developments that are also subject to a planning obligation under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. There is the potential for duplication of conditions on such developments—that is, a contribution being required for the same object or purpose under a planning obligation and by way of the infrastructure levy. It would be inappropriate for persons such as developers to be required to contribute twice for the same object or purpose. That could impact on development.

My amendment 218 seeks to avoid that by specifically enabling any infrastructure levy regulations made by the Scottish ministers to provide for the granting of relief from liability to pay infrastructure levy where the development is subject to a section 75 planning obligation and where the planning authority considers that

“to require payment of infrastructure levy in respect of the development would constitute a duplication ... of contribution by the person who is liable to pay infrastructure levy.”

14:30

Kevin Stewart

The passage of the bill has been a marathon effort, but we have now come to the last group of amendments, and I am delighted to say that I support all the amendments in the group. I should say a little bit more, though—and it will just be a little bit.

The Local Government and Communities Committee highlighted concerns that the power to establish an infrastructure levy might remain in legislation without ever actually being implemented. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to introduce a sunset clause, meaning that the power to establish a levy would lapse if it were not used within 10 years of royal assent. Although the amendment was agreed to, some members still felt that the period was too long. Having looked at the timescales for and feasibility of bringing forward levy regulations, I am happy to lodge amendment 149, which seeks to reduce the time period from 10 to seven years. I am confident that that will still give sufficient time for the additional work and consultation needed to inform the regulations.

Moreover, concerns were raised at stage 2 over the timing of payment of the infrastructure levy and the fact that payment may be sought prior to the granting of planning permission. To address those concerns, I have lodged amendment 150, which seeks to remove paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to ensure that regulations cannot preclude planning permission being granted on the basis of non-payment of the infrastructure levy.

Another concern that has emerged is the potential for overlap between the infrastructure levy and planning obligations under section 75 of the 1997 act, with the issue of duplication and double charging being raised in particular. I believe that it is a reasonable point, and I am therefore happy to support amendment 218 in the name of Alexander Stewart, which will provide the industry with greater certainty.

The bill includes a wide definition of infrastructure that funds from the levy could be used to support. However, there have been calls for the definition to include a specific reference to green and blue infrastructure. Again, I am grateful to Claudia Beamish for her co-operation and communication on all of this; her amendment 213 seeks to do what I have previously set out, and I am happy to support it.

Amendment 214 seeks to introduce a broad definition of what “green and blue infrastructure” consists of. Although I have some concerns about the detail of the amendment, I am content that the bill contains sufficient flexibility, should circumstances change and the definitions need to be amended in the future. I am therefore happy to support that amendment, too.

Claudia Beamish

I am delighted that the minister has accepted the amendments on green and blue infrastructure, which will help to tackle the climate and environment emergency as well as help the wellbeing of the people of Scotland.

I have no more to say, other than this has been a tough gig for everybody. Well done, all.

Amendment 213 agreed to.

Amendment 214 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Section 30A—Lapsing of power to provide for levy

Amendment 149 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 216 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 216 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 216 disagreed to.

Schedule 1—Infrastructure-levy regulations

Amendment 218 moved—[Alexander Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 218 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 80, Against 31, Abstentions 0.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Abstentions

Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 78, Against 31, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 159 agreed to.

Amendments 220 and 221 not moved.

Amendments 153 and 154 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendments 222 and 223 not moved.

18 June 2019

19 June 2019

20 June 2019

Final debate on the Bill

Once they've debated the amendments, the MSPs discuss the final version of the Bill.

Final debate transcript

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

We will move straight on, as we are really short of time now. The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-17781, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

Before I invite Kevin Stewart to open the debate, I call the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government to signify Crown consent to the bill.

The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government (Aileen Campbell)

For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Planning (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Kevin Stewart to speak to and move the motion. [Interruption.] Minister, I am so sorry, but I do not think that your microphone is on.

16:28

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning (Kevin Stewart)

I am delighted that we have finally arrived at the stage 3 debate on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. A lot has happened since it was first introduced in December 2017. However, even now, after all this time and all the amendments, I am not yet tired of talking about planning and I am looking forward to the debate.

Scotland needs a world-class planning system. Planning affects all our interests in the long term. Our future economy, our communities and our environment can all benefit if we get the bill right. The original aim of the bill was to streamline the system so that planners could focus less on procedures and more on planning places for people.

The global thinker and pioneering town planner, Scotland’s own Patrick Geddes, said that planning should be about place, work and folk. There is no neater way to summarise the contribution that planning can make to supporting sustainable and inclusive growth. We need a planning system that understands what people need and want, that enables good-quality development and that is truly empowered to deliver great places.

When the review of the Scottish planning system started, it aimed to look at planning from a user’s perspective. It recognised that users of planning include other public sector interests, communities and individuals, as well as developers. Although the review set out to support housing delivery, the independent panel’s report was not an agenda for deregulation or a developer’s charter. By making the system more collaborative, it aimed to empower planning to deliver great places.

Following that direction of travel, we carried out a great deal of work before the bill was drafted, in which we involved the many different interests in planning to help to shape proposals for change. However, it was clear then, and it has been clear throughout the parliamentary process, that it is very difficult for everyone to agree on how the system can be improved. The bill was always going to be a challenge. Planning is an important, but often controversial, subject. It is complex, because communities are complex, and at times its jargon can seem impenetrable. For a time, the bill became a little bit complicated too, but after many hours of discussion and debate, I believe that we have achieved what we set out to do.

Planning is clearly of interest to us all, and many members have raised important issues that they want the bill to address. The number of amendments at stage 2, and indeed at stage 3, has been remarkable. As we near the end of the process, I believe that we have struck a good balance. The bill should be clear about what the Parliament wants planning to do, but it should also allow local flexibility to reflect local circumstances and the different needs of Scotland’s people and places.

The structural changes that the bill introduces will make planning much more straightforward, more open and better placed to respond to a changing world. The Parliament has made it clear that, as well as supporting sustainable and inclusive economic growth, planning can improve our quality of life and should be more open and accountable to the communities that we serve. Amendments have underlined the importance of planning for housing—including housing for older people and disabled folk—as well as for equalities and health. The bill will bring new powers to address issues such as short-term lets and the impact of new developments on music venues.

Patrick Geddes pioneered the concept of thinking globally and acting locally. Sustainable development is now an integral part of a newly defined purpose for planning, and I am pleased that there is a clear requirement to tackle climate change as a high-level outcome in the text of the bill. We know that planning should help us to make the most of our natural assets, and the bill reflects the importance of rural development, forestry, green space, play, environmental protection and built heritage. Those things are important: our places, our wellbeing and our economy depend on the health of our environment. Although we may have had different views on the best way of achieving those aims, it is very welcome that the Parliament has set out those priorities so clearly.

I will do that in summing up.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Planning (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Graham Simpson, who is equally tight for time.

16:35

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

So here we are at the end of the road of the most amended bill in the Scottish Parliament’s history. For MSPs, the journey started in December 2017, when the bill was introduced, but for others, it started much earlier. Way back in September 2015, the Scottish Government appointed an independent panel to review the planning system. In May 2016, the panel published a statement and its final report “Empowering planning to deliver great places”, which contained 48 recommendations for reform over six main themes.

In January 2017, the Government issued a consultation paper called “Places, people and planning”, and the consultation ran until April 2017. A position statement was issued in June 2017 and the bill was introduced in December that year. That is when the problems started. MSPs got their hands on the bill, and the minister started having sleepless nights.

The Local Government and Communities Committee did not hold back in its stage 1 report on the bill in May last year—it criticised virtually every section. The then convener, Bob Doris, was swiftly moved on, along with Jenny Gilruth. James Dornan came in as the convener and faced a barrage of amendments—more than 300 of them—and seven weeks of watching the minister squirm, after which the minister described the bill as “a guddle”. He was right.

In the stage 1 debate, I said that the bill achieved the almost impossible by pleasing no one—not house builders, councils or the environment lobby. It was silent on the environment and did nothing to achieve growth or deliver the new homes that we desperately need. My approach to stage 3 was to try to rectify that—to sort out the guddle and end up with something that delivers for all. I think that we have done that.

I have listened over the past two and a bit days to some utter rubbish from Labour and the Greens, such as accusations of a stitch-up between us and the Scottish National Party and of deals being made.

Neil Findlay

Will the member take an intervention?

Graham Simpson

Yesterday, Monica Lennon even accused me of betrayal. That is a strong word that I hope that she will reflect on. I worked well with Mrs Lennon and Andy Wightman at stage 2. I was looking forward to working with Monica Lennon’s replacement, Alex Rowley, but he showed no interest in that. He has not engaged; he has hidden away in his 1970s tribal Labour cave and not come out.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

Will the member take an intervention?

Neil Findlay

Will the member take an intervention?

Graham Simpson

Having suffered a series of bloody noses at stage 2, the minister was keen to talk. I have no problem at all with working with the Government when we agree. The Government has welcomed good ideas from the Conservatives and we have achieved a lot of positive results. Let us look at some of them.

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Will the member take an intervention?

Graham Simpson

I will not take interventions from Labour members; we have heard more than enough from them in the past two days.

The housing needs of older and disabled people will be recognised in the planning system, thanks to Jeremy Balfour, Alexander Stewart and, I should mention, Kenny Gibson. Mr Balfour worked with Mary Fee to bring in amendments on changing places facilities. Alexander Stewart tightened up the procedure on the infrastructure levy, so that people will not pay twice for the same thing. Adam Tomkins introduced the agent of change principle into the bill and, on Tuesday, we had the unedifying spectacle of three middle-aged men trying to show their street cred by reeling off the names of music venues that they had heard of.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 157, on short-term lets, will give councils the power to crack down in areas where there is a problem, such as Edinburgh. Combined—I hope—with a tough licensing regime, that should make a difference.

I, too, have had a few successes. The national planning framework must now include targets for the use of land across Scotland. When preparing the NPF, ministers must now be given information about an area’s built heritage, its educational capacity and the population’s housing needs. There is also now a robust procedure so that Parliament can scrutinise the NPF.

Local development plans, which are the bread and butter of the planning system, must also refer to the built heritage, and the housing needs of the population of the area must be taken into account. Ministers must issue guidance to planning authorities on undertaking effective community engagement in relation to the local plans. The councils that are covered by the central Scotland green network should consult the network on their LDPs.

We have a purpose for planning—a concise one. We have the beginnings of a self-build revolution. We now have a requirement for housing land allocations to be agreed before they go into the plan, which should provide certainty for communities and those wanting to invest. Councils must tell people that they can prepare local place plans, and those same people can say which places are important to them in those plans. Biodiversity now features in the bill. Yesterday, even the Labour Party agreed to an amendment in my name that introduced mediation into the system, which will give communities a real say and will, I hope, avoid the conflict that mires the system at present.

We now have a bill that can deliver growth across Scotland, that is greener and that includes communities in the decisions that affect them. I commend this Tory-style bill to the Parliament.

16:41

Alex Rowley (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)

In leading on the bill for Labour, I have asked myself what the big issues are for planning and development in Scotland. First, there is the lack of up-front finance for infrastructure, which is a major block to housing development that I have raised many times in the chamber. By infrastructure, I do not mean roads and utilities, although there are challenges with those; I mean schools and health and community facilities. In my mind, that issue is a major block to house building, but will the bill do anything to address it? No, it will not.

Secondly, there is a sense of alienation in communities across Scotland that have experienced the planning process. Will the bill do anything to address that? It most certainly will not. Thirdly, the planning system as it stands does little to support development and regeneration in town centres and post-industrial communities. Will the bill do anything to address that? No, it will not. Fourthly, the only people who seem to be in denial about the impact on our communities of short-term lets are the Tory and Scottish National Party members in the Parliament. Will the bill do anything about those concerns? Sadly, it will not. Fifthly, will the bill address the unacceptable level of cuts to finance and staffing in planning departments? No, it will not.

For all those reasons, Scottish Labour will vote against the bill. Frankly, it has become a missed opportunity to deliver the real change that is desperately needed in the planning system. That is not to say that the bill has no positive elements. I am pleased that we have managed to secure amendments that will make a difference but, on the whole, the bill does not go anywhere near far enough. The planning system should be more engaging and should be used to empower people and communities, drive economic regeneration and protect an environment that we can all be proud of. It is disappointing that neither SNP members nor the Tories seem willing to support legislation that can achieve that. Instead, they seem content to vote together to put through legislation that will not tackle the big problems that our country faces.

The bill will not solve our housing crisis or tackle the lack of a joined-up approach to government, and nor will it deliver a national house-building strategy, which is necessary. Instead, it is unambitious in its scope, which is disappointing, as it had the potential to do so much more. The bill could have transformed the way in which we plan our communities. It could have made our planning system less opaque and introduced a much-needed democratic element to our approach to planning. The bill was an opportunity to introduce a more balanced share of power between communities and developers. It could have brought communities and social change to the forefront but, sadly, the approach that has been taken instead is unambitious and is, in essence, business as usual.

The SNP and Tories were happy to vote together to block communities having a form of equal right of appeal in planning decisions. I lodged amendments that would have rebalanced power in the planning system and given communities and not just developers a right of appeal in order to level the playing field and make the system fairer for all. However, those amendments were not supported by Tory and SNP members, who seem quite content to lend their support to big developers, rather than to the communities that they are elected to represent.

To be honest, the bill has become an SNP and Tory stitch-up, and I hope that communities across the country remember that when they experience the planning process. Regretfully, because there have not been the required changes to ensure that the bill delivers a planning system that works in the interests of the many, Scottish Labour will vote against the Planning (Scotland) Bill today.

16:45

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

After many hours of debate and months of parliamentary procedure, we have reached the end of the road. Despite our differences along the way, I thank my colleagues on the Local Government and Communities Committee—particularly Alex Rowley and Monica Lennon—for their willingness to work together and for putting in substantial effort on the bill. We have had some fun along the way, too.

I was disappointed by the tone of Graham Simpson’s opening remarks but, nevertheless, I thank him for the times when we worked well together—they were good times, and I have fond memories.

I also thank the minister and his officials for their constructive engagement on some issues in which my Green colleagues and I were interested. We secured important amendments on public toilets and water refill points, which took up some time at stage 2; Gypsy Travellers; air quality; open spaces; forestry strategies; and the purpose of planning.

At the third reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill in 1947, Lewis Silkin, who was Labour’s Minister of Town and Country Planning, noted that

“planning is concerned to secure that our limited land resources are used to the best advantage of the nation as a whole, and it provides for resolving the often conflicting claims upon any particular piece of land.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 May 1947; Vol 437, c 2196.]

Over the past few decades, the private developer, rather than the public authority, has become the prime mover in the planning system. As a result, public trust has broken down and been eroded, and powerful private interests and money have corrupted the public interest.

The bill provided an opportunity to fundamentally reform how planning works. Yes, we had the opportunity to streamline and simplify where possible but, more important, we could have delivered a decisive shift in favour of a proper plan-led planning system in which planners, elected members and communities can work together in a collaborative effort to shape the places where we live, work and play.

That ambition is about much more than legislation, and I note that a variety of excellent practice is taking place across Scotland to engage communities and to facilitate high-quality place making. However, the whole system still suffers from excessive complexity and, over the past 30 years, greater and greater emphasis has been placed on benefiting private interests.

Nowhere is that point more clear than in our collective failure, again, to reform appeal rights—not, I stress, to introduce a third-party right of appeal but to reform the whole system of appeals. In the committee’s stage 1 report, we were clear in our recommendation 224, which was agreed unanimously. It said:

“The Committee is conscious that the availability of appeals to applicants undermines confidence in a plan-led system. Appeals can be lodged free of charge and irrespective of whether an application is in accordance with the Development Plan. The Committee believes that in a plan-led system appeals should only be allowed in certain circumstances.”

As Dr Andy Inch from Planning Democracy said, the planning system

An ambition to provide up-front planning has to be matched by the integrity of the plan. In such a scenario, no appeals should be allowed at all, and a properly considered determination should stand as the final word.

In 2015, when the then cabinet secretary Alex Neil announced that there would be an independent review of the planning system, he said that there would be

“a ‘root and branch’ review”,

with

“game-changing ideas for radical reform”.

When the independent panel reported back, planning minister Kevin Stewart welcomed the work, noting that it would

“help form the basis to kick-start a new, focussed and revitalised planning system.”

Instead, we were given a bill that delivered business as usual for the planning system and proposed a degree of centralisation that was quite alarming.

Kevin Stewart

Does Mr Wightman recognise that the independent panel was not in favour of a third-party right of appeal and that, in the bill, we have followed its suggestion that we needed to do more up-front engagement?

Andy Wightman

I recognise that the panel rejected a third-party right of appeal, but it said nothing about the applicant’s right of appeal. It did not even look at that.

As we contemplate the bill in its final form, apart from a bit of tinkering around the edges, we see nothing that is radical or game changing, nothing to protect communities against their hollowing out by short-term lets, and nothing to bring the vandalism of hill tracks under democratic scrutiny.

At the heart of that failure is a failure of process. Had I been planning minister, here is how I would have proceeded: first, I would have convened cross-party round-table talks to discuss the interests and concerns of members; secondly, I would have introduced a consolidating bill rather than the amending bill that has proved so difficult for the electorate to understand; and thirdly, I would have set out a coherent vision and set of principles to underpin the bill. It was notable at stage 1 that, when I asked the minister what the general principles of the bill were, he did not have an answer. Finally, I would have maintained and worked to build cross-party consensus throughout the process. However, we are where we are.

I know that the minister is a big fan of the 1952 Aberdeen city plan. Tom Johnston, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, writing in the foreword to that plan, observed:

“The alternative to planning is no planning: it is chaos and waste”.

The purpose of planning is at the very least to prevent chaos and waste but, more positively, it is to promote the allocation of land in the public interest and for the common good. That ambition is still not being realised.

In the stage 1 debate, I made the following comments:

“Greens believe that planning can and must be a force for good for delivering high-quality environments, reducing inequalities and promoting the public interest in the use of land. To that end, substantial amendment is required. If the bill before us was the final bill, we would be voting against it tonight. However, it can be improved, so we will vote to keep it in play.”—[Official Report, 29 May 2018; c 32.]

It is our considered view that the bill has not had the substantial amendment required to transform the planning system in the way we envisaged to deliver a plan-led system in which communities have autonomy to determine for themselves.

16:52

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD)

On holiday lets, as an Edinburgh MSP with an interest—I refer people to my entry in the register of members’ interests—I still think that we have missed a trick in not using the bill to properly regulate the holiday lets market, which is hollowing out cities such as Edinburgh. We have not grasped the opportunity to protect areas such as wild land or to regulate hill tracks either.

We are told that planning bills come every 10 years. That is a great shame, and I hope very much that the next planning bill comes sooner than that. I very much look forward to repealing this one from the Government benches.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. We move to the open debate. Sorry, but we are very tight for time, so do not go over your four minutes.

16:56

James Dornan (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)

I am surprised that you said that just as I was getting up to speak, Presiding Officer. I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for his weak joke at the end of his speech.

As the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I am truly delighted that we have reached stage 3 of the Planning (Scotland) Bill. After the successful passing of the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill, the committee is nearing the end of the legislative process for a second bill in as many weeks, which is in marked contrast to the inaction at Westminster. Once again, we are showing that it is this Parliament that truly works for the people of Scotland.

I can say without bias, as I was not a member of the committee at the time, that the work done at stage 1 was truly gargantuan. The committee made visits all over Scotland, took part in a major planning conference in Stirling, engaged with school students and the Scottish Youth Parliament, took evidence from 25 different organisations at formal meetings and produced a thorough report that made recommendations on every major aspect of the bill.

I pay tribute to colleagues who were on the committee at the time—except, perhaps, Graham Simpson, because of his opening comments—particularly the then convener Bob Doris, for their commitment and hard work. More important, I thank the many professionals, community bodies and individuals who engaged with the committee at stage 1 and, indeed, throughout the bill’s progress, with informed and, at times, passionate views.

Ultimately, planning is about communities, homes, jobs and quality-of-life issues. Because of that, the debate has sometimes been passionate and even on occasion heated, but that is no bad thing and goes only to underline the importance of the reforms that we have been considering.

I became the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee on the very first day of our consideration of the bill at stage 2—Bob Doris needed a rest after having to put up with Graham Simpson throughout stage 1. Since that day last September, the parliamentary process has been a bit of a marathon. I am reliably informed that that was the longest stage 2 for well over a decade and the longest stage 2 ever considered by a local government committee in Parliament.

I am sure that I speak for all committee members when I say that I hope that that record stands for a very long time. In total, 394 amendments were lodged. Looking back, it feels as though they were considered over the same number of meetings, but there were actually only seven meetings.

Many non-committee members took part in our proceedings, which again reflects the very wide interest that there has been in the bill throughout the process.

I sincerely thank all my committee members, our fabulous clerking team, along with their colleagues from the Scottish Parliament information centre, everyone who appeared before the committee, and, of course, the minister and all his officials.

It is fair to say that the bill that emerged at stage 2 was a rather different beast to the one that went into it, with well over 100 amendments agreed to, which added to or removed text from the bill. That included new provisions on key matters, including on the agent of change principle to protect live music venues, on planning permission for short-term lets, on the call-in of applications, on enhanced community engagement and on a host of other important matters, which, if I listed them now, would take up all the remaining time in my speech and get me into trouble with the Presiding Officer.

We have had three—long—days of great debates, with 40 groups of amendments, and we are now in the home straight. Despite what we have heard from some of my colleagues, who will take the credit for any good bits in the bill at this stage and say that the rest of it is rubbish, these reforms will create an effective planning system that will help deliver the housing infrastructure and investment that current and future generations need. It will strengthen and simplify the planning system and ensure that planning better serves Scotland’s communities and economy, and I look forward to seeing how these reforms will shape a fairer and more equal Scotland in future.

17:00

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

As I have said before in the chamber, I was a councillor for 18 years, and I know only too well the issues raised by the planning process. Many amendments have gone through during the various stages of this bill, but I think that some real progress has been made.

Planning is often characterised as a zero-sum game with winners and losers, but it should be a place for people and it should lead to good development. Everyone acknowledges the need for more houses, and we believe that a vast majority of people are not against development itself. However, they are against developments that do not have the necessary infrastructure requirements.

The bill has come a long way from what was originally introduced, but many of the amendments that have been lodged strengthen it. I have always thought it important to do all we can to encourage communities to engage in the planning process in a constructive manner and at the earliest stage. In that respect, the introduction of local place plans will give communities a greater say, and it is exactly the positive step that we want to see. In the bill’s early stages, we were concerned about the time, effort and money that communities would be required to put into developing these plans, but I think that those concerns were erased at stage 2.

There is no question but that we ended up with a guddle at stage 2, but we have managed to iron out many of the problems at stage 3. I welcome the commitment to greater public consultation and the fact that planning authorities will formally be required to take local place plans into account in their local development plans.

Another community engagement issue that proved to be more contentious in our debates was the third-party right of appeal. Previously, we said that we would closely examine the case for such a provision, and we did so, concluding that such a change would simply slow the planning process further and stifle development. However, it became clear that the status quo was not an option, and we sought to reach a compromise and strike a balance. That is what we have achieved, and with the changes made as a result of the amendment in question, mediation will become an integral part of the planning process and not just something that will be attempted once it is too late. It will actually mean something, and it will lead to developments and much more progress.

It can often be difficult to bring two different points of view together—

Monica Lennon

Will the member give way?

Alexander Stewart

I would like to, but time is tight.

In reality, it is difficult to bring two different points of view together, but what we are seeing with that amendment is an attempt to find common ground.

I pay tribute to my colleagues Graham Simpson, Adam Tomkins and Jeremy Balfour for their measured contributions to this process, and I am proud of the constructive role that the Scottish Conservatives have played at every stage to strengthen the bill and to ensure that we end up with a fundamentally better planning process. We are protecting the environment as well as older and disabled people; we are ensuring that there is much more to the process; and we are attempting to ensure that it includes mediation.

Good planning requires communities, developers and councils to work together constructively to build the houses that we need and which communities want. We are ambitious for our planning process, and that work is now taking place. It is by no means an easy task, but I think that the bill as it now stands will go some way towards helping us achieve our objectives. Indeed, that is exactly what we are trying to do: to ensure that the bill’s objectives make things better for communities and individuals. I support the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you very much. I call Neil Findlay, to be followed by Kenneth Gibson.

17:04

Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab)

Do I have three minutes or four, Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You have three minutes.

Neil Findlay

It was planning that got me into elected politics, so I want to focus on how planning impacts on communities and on how the bill has failed them. In my time, I have seen developers with deep pockets hiring consultants to write so-called independent reports, produce glossy documents and buy off opponents. When applications were refused, they had the right to appeal those refusals and to resource public inquiries.

Communities, on the other hand, have no resources, no consultants, no lawyers, no expert witnesses for hire and no right of appeal. Some have found themselves being thrown into the maelstrom of a planning inquiry for which they have been required to invest huge amounts of time in writing precognitions, preparing cases and being questioned by lawyers and even Queen’s counsel, with zero resources being made available to them. How on earth is that fair? It is not, and it is a democratic outrage that it still happens.

I will paraphrase a letter that I received almost 20 years ago from Mary Allison, who was objecting to an application for an opencast coal mine in Blackridge. She said that no matter how open ministers claim the system is, communities are intimidated by the power of the professionals whom they face, and their views as residents are dismissed as being less competent or credible than those of the so-called experts.

However, professional presentations are simply a collection of information—they are not right or wrong until we apply our values and judgements to interpretation, and can assess whether the community or the developer is set to gain or lose with a development. Those who present information as scientific evidence are elevated to a position of greater value than the people in the community, who might for various reasons struggle to express individual or community positions. Personal, emotional and moral values are the centre of our society, but because they are subjective, they can easily be disregarded. Scientific evidence can be just as subjectively gathered, but objectively presented. Why does a study that is conducted one day by a so-called expert from outside the community mean more than the daily lived experience of people who have lived there all their lives?

I will give an example. I value the rugged moorland of my home village: it is where I fished, camped, walked and cycled when I was growing up. The landscape gives me a sense of place and of who I am. It is valuable to me and my community—it cannot be recreated. This is not about nimbyism: it is about community-led development that has popular support, not a neoliberal planning system in which profit and economic growth trump everything.

This week, the SNP, the Tories and their business allies have stitched up the Planning (Scotland) Bill. The dogs in the street know it. On equal rights of appeal and on short-term lets they have shamefully let down communities. They have been bought and sold for developers’ gold. They had a chance to introduce equality, but they have failed miserably with a shabby deal that was done across the chamber between members on the front benches of the SNP and the Tories.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

For the avoidance of doubt, Kenneth Gibson has four minutes, and Jeremy Balfour and Annabelle Ewing each have three minutes, for political balance.

17:07

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. That is helpful.

Today’s debate is the culmination of countless hours of work and contributions from numerous people and organisations across Scottish society. As a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee I heard, with colleagues, evidence from numerous organisations. Engagement by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, has also been invaluable.

I offer my sincere thanks to everyone who contributed. The process would have been impossible without the evidence that led to 394 amendments being lodged at stage 2, and 223 being lodged ahead of stage 3.

The journalist Alistair Grant said that “Planning (Scotland) Bill” are

“The three most distressing words in the English language”.

However, consultant architect Malcolm Fraser, who gave evidence at stage 1, said that,

“Planning should be a wonderful, joyful thing.”—[Official Report, Local Government and Communities Committee, Date 7 March 2018; c 46.]

I think that most of us have a view that is somewhere between those two extremes.

The bill will overhaul the current planning system and amplify the voices of local people and communities throughout the planning process. I will touch on broad provisions in the bill. Part 1 will enhance the role of the national planning framework and will remove the requirement to produce strategic development plans, while introducing a new right for communities to produce their own local place plans.

Part 2 will provide for simplified development zones in order to front load scrutiny of potential sites, and will provide for delivery of consents through zoning land.

Part 3 will change development management processes in order to improve efficiency, support local consultation and move toward localised decision making.

Part 4 will strengthen planning authorities’ ability to use their powers effectively in order to ensure appropriate enforcement on unauthorised developments, and to widen the scope for charging fees in relation to planning functions, while taking a more structured approach to performance improvement across planning services.

The final part of the bill provides for the introduction of an infrastructure levy that will be payable to local authorities and be linked to development, in order to fund or contribute to projects that will incentivise development delivery.

It was important to me that the bill should contain provisions to support the needs of older people and disabled people. I thank Age Scotland, in particular, for its assistance with my amendments at stage 2, through which I sought to place the housing needs of older and disabled people at the heart of the national planning framework. Good and accessible housing is central to the health and independence of older people and disabled people, so I am pleased that, under the bill, the NPF will contribute to improved outcomes for older people and disabled people. Ministers will be required to publish a statement on how that will be achieved.

I was pleased by the minister’s willingness to engage with me, Graham Simpson and other colleagues who were willing to engage with the minister on a cross-party basis, in order to take forward the spirit of the amendments, while streamlining the bill to avoid unnecessary duplication and cost. That involved removing some of my amendments, but what is important is not whose amendment is in the bill, but what the bill will achieve in practice. I am delighted that our hard-working and listening minister has delivered for older people and disabled people.

Following a somewhat arduous process, we now have a better bill that more closely corresponds with the planning needs of Scotland’s people and communities. Planning requires a system that balances the needs of many people. It is disappointing that we have had gripes from the Greens, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who seem to think that the bill is worse than the status quo. I am struggling to understand how they can believe that, given what we have been through over the past 18 months or so of the process. They clearly want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

We have now arrived at a more coherent, fair and inclusive system that will work for Scotland. I urge all members to vote in favour of the bill at decision time.

17:10

Jeremy Balfour (Lothian) (Con)

I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the final debate on the bill. I congratulate the minister, his team and all the committee members on having got us to where we are today. I disagree fundamentally with the other three Opposition parties: we have a bill that is workable and is better than the current system. Could it have been better? Clearly, that would have been the case had all my amendments been accepted. However, we are in a better position and are further down the road than we were some years ago.

Like other members, I used to be a local councillor, and I sat on the planning committee in the City of Edinburgh Council. I completely disagree with Alex Cole-Hamilton—the bill will not take power away from local councils: it will help local councillors to make decisions. Ultimately, in 99 per cent of cases that is where power should lie, because councillors know their communities. That is what the bill will allow.

I have been frustrated—perhaps even more than the minister—by the debate around appeals, and the third-party right of appeal in particular. Many people have painted the issue in a simplistic way by suggesting that it is about community against developer. However, in my time as a local councillor here in Edinburgh, that was hardly ever the case. On almost every controversial planning application, some of the community wanted it and some of the community did not want it. In all the debates that I have heard over the past two days, no one has mentioned people who are in favour of a development. Where is their voice? Where are they allowed to say that they want a development to go ahead?

Andy Wightman

Will the member take an intervention on that?

Jeremy Balfour

I am afraid that I am almost out of time.

It is oversimplistic to say that it is a case of community against developer. It was never that simple in my time as a councillor.

Like Kenny Gibson, who spoke earlier, I am particularly pleased that the bill is giving disabled and older people greater rights. One of the things that will stand out from the bill is that it will change our approach to public toilets. That might seem to be very simple and straightforward, but for the Scottish economy and, more important, for families and individuals, it will radically change what Scotland looks like over the next 50 years. For that, I am grateful for the support of all the parties in Parliament. I will be happy to vote for the bill in a few minutes.

17:13

Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

Given the time that is available, I will focus on just a few issues.

First, it is vital that communities have a meaningful role in the planning process. I know very well from constituents that, in many cases, they feel that they are under siege from developers. Although a system that will please everyone can never be devised, I am encouraged by the approach of the bill in front-loading community engagement. That approach was recommended by the independent planning review panel, which concluded that it would be more beneficial to use available

“time and resources to focus on improved early engagement”.

I am also encouraged that statutory guidelines are to be drawn up on what effective community engagement will comprise. It will be important to ensure that the guidelines provide for meaningful engagement, if we want to keep faith with affected communities across Scotland.

The role of the local place plan is another important development, but, again, it will be of relevance to local communities only if they have the wherewithal to get involved.

On serial applications, I am pleased that the relevant period is being extended from the current two years to five years. However, that will be worth the paper that it is written on only if local authorities actually exercise their powers, which, it appears, they do not do at present. I therefore ask the minister to take up the issue with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities directly, because in failing to deal with serial applications, local authorities are letting down the communities that they exist to serve. I am also pleased that there will be greater focus in the planning process on local health service impacts, because that issue is raised by communities time and again.

Finally, I will say a few words about the third-party right of appeal. Yesterday, proposals on it were rejected by Parliament by 93 to 25 votes. Although I do not think that anyone would claim that it was an easy issue, I believe that Parliament has reached the best decision. As I said at stage 2, the body of evidence was not in favour of a third-party right of appeal being introduced to the planning system. It is worth noting that there is no third-party right of appeal in any country in the United Kingdom. It is interesting that in Ireland, where there is such a process, very few decisions have been wholly reversed. In addition, no such third-party right was recommended by the independent planning review panel: indeed, we received strong representations against the introduction of such a right from a myriad of relevant bodies.

Across Scotland, people need homes, workplaces and facilities. Therefore, we need to see objectives being met in accordance with a robust, fair and straightforward planning process. That is the only way we will restore faith in the planning process.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you very much. I thank members for their shortened speeches, which they all kept to, despite the demands on them.

17:16

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

I refer to my entry in the register of interests, as I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

I went to planning school at the University of Strathclyde back in 1997. Even then, I had a deep interest in the power dynamics that play out in our communities and that ultimately shape the places where we live, work and play, to paraphrase Patrick Geddes. For me, the obsession about equal rights of appeal is fundamental to how our planning system operates and whose interests it serves.

There are many people to thank, and I add my thanks to the members of the Local Government and Communities Committee, the clerks, all the stakeholders, and the many people and organisations that gave us written and oral evidence.

When thinking about planning, one should get out of Parliament, and I was pleased to spend time with Graham Simpson at an engagement event in Motherwell, which is in the region that we represent. I have just looked at the committee’s report on that session. People made it clear that they felt strongly that the current appeals system works against communities and that it undermines the confidence that we all want people to have. I remind Graham Simpson of that, because we have not come into the process to make cheap political points. James Dornan reflected on how much scrutiny took place, and I thank James Dornan and Bob Doris for their convenership. The fact that more than 100 amendments were passed shows how much collaboration and consensus there was.

Graham Simpson knows the arguments well. At stage 2, he said that there was no doubt that the present system is lopsided, and that the Government did not address that in the bill. We talked about equal rights of appeal and whether that would lead to a more robust, plan-led system. Although we supported mediation because it will not do any harm, I am afraid that it will not do a great deal of good. Graham Simpson said that we have been talking rubbish; however, together with Andy Wightman, we spent a lot of time and worked really hard on the issue. I think that, privately, Graham Simpson will be disappointed, as many of us are.

We wanted to ensure that planning delivers better outcomes for all the communities that we live in and the people whom we represent. That is why we have talked a lot about improving health and reconnecting planning to public health. Andy Wightman has made the point very well, many times, about how planning has lost its way and become a wee bit too bureaucratic.

There have been some positive aspects. The work that Lewis Macdonald has led on agent of change and speaking up for live music venues has been very important, but has suffered some disappointments along the way—especially on short-term lets, about which strong feelings exist both inside and outside the chamber.

I do not have a great deal of time left, so I will move on. It is with great disappointment that I say that Scottish Labour will not support the bill. We all wanted to maximise the opportunity that it presented.

I will end by quoting Clare Symonds of Planning Democracy. In speaking about the community voice, which is what we need to hear, she said:

“We are deeply disappointed by this Bill, which has been a huge missed opportunity to transform the way we do planning. Scotland needs to take a different approach to development to tackle key issues such as the climate emergency ... this Bill reinforces a business as usual approach”.

She went on to say that the bill is a

“bitter pill ... that has nothing to offer in terms of citizen empowerment.”

I say to the minister that it is quite sad that that is how communities in Scotland feel.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Adam Tomkins to close the debate on behalf of the Conservatives. Five minutes, please, Mr Tomkins.

17:20

Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con)

Some 13 months ago, during consideration of the bill at stage 1, I said:

“the purpose of planning is to facilitate and enable growth in Scotland’s economy. To grow the economy, we need development, and to engineer development should be the focus of the planning system. Of course development needs to be environmentally sustainable, and of course growth needs to be socially inclusive, but first and foremost there needs to be growth, and the job of the planning system is to help to make that happen—to facilitate it and not to get in its way.”—[Official Report, 29 May 2018; c 61.]

The Scottish Conservatives’ approach has been informed by those principles during all three stages of consideration. I welcome the fact that, mainly since stage 2, the Government has sought to work with us to ensure, as best as possible, that the bill delivers on that core mission, which I think it does—it passes that test. When we enact the bill in a few moments’ time, it will help to secure environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive growth that will help the development of the Scottish economy. That is the purpose of the planning system.

Andy Wightman

Will the member take an intervention?

Adam Tomkins

Not at the moment, Mr Wightman.

I will give two examples of the ways in which I think that the bill has been improved in the course of its passage through the Parliament and which will help it to deliver on that ambition.

First, I will talk about masterplan consent areas, as they are now to be called, which were dealt with in a part of the bill that was amended at stage 2, when a number of amendments in my name were agreed to unanimously by the Local Government and Communities Committee. Secondly, there was the welcome reintroduction of regional spatial strategies. I know that, going into consideration of the bill, one of the minister’s aims was the removal of the need for strategic planning. I absolutely understood the case for that, which was about removing unnecessary duplication in the Scottish planning system. However, at the same time, and as a number of members on both the Labour and Conservative benches pointed out, strategic planning has a valuable role in driving forward Scottish economic growth, which we have seen most recently and most importantly through the impact that city and regional growth deals are having across the country—not least in my own city of Glasgow.

If I may say so, the minister has done well in finding a compromise between his desire not to have duplication at that level and our desire not to see strategic planning entirely lost from the face of our planning system, through the introduction, at stage 3, of regional spatial strategies. As the minister said, when we were debating the set of amendments, such strategies

“are more agile and better able to reflect”—[Official Report, 18 June 2019; c 83.]

and refine regional needs and priorities. I think that it is healthy that they adopt a bottom-up rather than top-down approach and they get the balance right between central and local government.

Those are examples of ways in which I think that the bill has been improved, consistent with the principled approach that we have taken to it during all three stages of its consideration.

Andy Wightman

Will the member take an intervention?

Adam Tomkins

I am sorry, Mr Wightman—I just do not have time.

There are things that I regret are still not in the bill. Let me say a few words about land value capture—or land value sharing, as it might now be called—which we discussed at stages 1 and 2. I note that, in the recommendations that the Scottish Land Commission made to the Scottish ministers just last month, Shona Glenn said:

“The debate how publicly created uplifts in land value should be shared between society and private landowners is one that has waxed and waned for decades. There is strong public interest justification for pursuing policies that would enable more of the publicly created increases in land values to be used to help make places where people want to live.”

I would have said “live and work”.

I accept that there is no quick fix for this, but we need to find ways of establishing a more collaborative approach to placemaking, and I want to continue to press the minister that land value capture should be part of that mix.

We recognise that there were fatal flaws in our attempts to get land value capture into the bill at stage 2 in the context of masterplan consent areas, not least of which was lack of compliance with the European convention on human rights. Our agreement that the amendments should be taken out at stage 3 should not, however, be misinterpreted. We have not given up on the idea and we will continue to pursue the Government on it.

Finally, I want to say something about agent of change. I am absolutely delighted that, for the first time in Scots planning law, the bill puts the agent of change principle unambiguously on the face of primary legislation. The agent of change principle shifts responsibility for mitigating the impact of noise from an existing music venue to a developer moving into the area. In essence, it means that those who bring about a change take responsibility for its impact. That is a key change and it will be interesting to see whether Lewis Macdonald votes against a bill that puts that principle into statute.

Lewis Macdonald (North East Scotland) (Lab) rose—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. I call—[Interruption.] Mr Macdonald, you were on your feet but now you are back down again.

Lewis Macdonald

I was going to—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No. You can intervene, but you cannot just have a wee chat.

17:26

Kevin Stewart

First, I put on record my thanks to everyone who has engaged in the process, from the very beginning to where we are now—which is not the end of the road. I will come to that in a little while. In particular, I thank my bill team, who have been exceptional. Andy Kinnaird and Jean Waddie have been absolute stars in all this.

One of the things that Mr Wightman pointed out is my love affair with the Aberdeen city local plan of 1952. He quoted Tom Johnston on it earlier and I will paraphrase him, because Tom Johnston also said that the only thing that would stop delivery of the plan was the red weevils of bureaucracy. I am afraid that, after stage 2, there were far too many red weevils of bureaucracy that would have held up the delivery of development in Scotland. I am glad that, in a lot of cases, folks chose to work together to make sure that we get it right now.

I turn to a few things that were said during the debate. Mr Rowley said that the bill does nothing for funding infrastructure, such as education and medical facilities, but the infrastructure levy proposals explicitly mention those things. He also said that the bill does not address the lack of funding for planning. It does, because streamlining the processes will free up money to ensure that local authorities can do much more community engagement. That is something that I wanted to see right from the start.

In her contribution, Ms Ewing said that planning authorities should use their existing powers and the new powers to be introduced under the new legislation to effectively safeguard communities, and I agree completely with that. As well as strengthening all the things that we have done, providing elected members with training opportunities will help.

I turn to comments that were made by Alex Cole-Hamilton, Mr Rowley and Mr Wightman. Alex Cole-Hamilton said that the bill assumes that a group of Edinburgh-based bureaucrats know better than communities across the country. The bill includes a range of measures to give local planning authorities and local communities more powers, including the power of local authorities to propose controls on short-term lets. Rather than imposing an Edinburgh-based solution on the whole, through the bill we have ensured that communities can make their own choices in that regard.

I agree that planning, as well as strengthening communities, should ensure sustainable economic growth. We all accept that.

To the members who have indicated that they will vote no tonight and try to vote down the bill, I say that they will be voting no to all of these things: a clear purpose for planning, putting the long-term public interest and sustainable development at the heart of the system; a stronger national planning framework, which was approved by this Parliament after further scrutiny; much better arrangements for strategic and local development planning, which will address the problems of the current system; and statutory support for climate change. They will be voting no to provisions on rural communities, disused railway lines, water refill locations, public conveniences, changing places toilets, open space, play, biodiversity, forestry and woodlands. They will also be voting against the recognition of the role of planning in improving health inequalities; protection for live music venues; more consistent training for councillors; a performance improvement coordinator to support authorities and everyone who engages with planning, which is something that stakeholders wanted. They will be voting against a right for communities to plan their own places and new opportunities to broaden engagement in development plans, including for disabled people, older people, Gypsy Travellers, children and young people.

In order to ensure that we got this right, at every stage, I asked the chief planner of this country whether the bill would improve the system. At many points during the process, he said no. Today, he says that, yes, it will improve the system and build on what we had before. It is time to roll our sleeves up, grasp the opportunity and work hard, together with communities, to deliver great places.

20 June 2019

Final vote on the Bill

After the final discussion of the Bill, MSPs vote on whether they think it should become law.

Final vote transcript

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S5M-17781, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the Planning (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Members should cast their votes now.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 78, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Planning (Scotland) Bill be passed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The Planning (Scotland) Bill is therefore passed. [Applause.]

Meeting closed at 17:35.

20 June 2019

Planning (Scotland) Bill as passed

Planning (Scotland) Bill - Printing changes after the Bill as passed

Printing changes are changes to the text of a Bill. It will not change the legal effect of the Bill.

Planning (Scotland) Bill

Overview

Why the Bill was created

Becomes an Act

Introduced

Planning (Scotland) Bill as Introduced

Related information from the Scottish Government on the Bill

Scottish Parliament research on the Bill

Stage 1 - General principles

Have your say

Committees involved in the Bill

Who checked the Bill

Who spoke to the lead committee about the proposed law

First meeting transcript

The Convener (Bob Doris)

Clare Symonds (Planning Democracy)

The Convener

Clare Symonds

The Convener

Dr Calum MacLeod (Community Land Scotland)

The Convener

Ian Cooke (Development Trusts Association Scotland)

The Convener

Petra Biberbach (Planning Aid for Scotland)

The Convener

Jenny Gilruth (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)

Dr Andy Inch (Planning Democracy)

Ian Cooke

The Convener

Jenny Gilruth

The Convener

Jenny Gilruth

The Convener

Dr MacLeod

The Convener

Petra Biberbach

Jenny Gilruth

Dr MacLeod

The Convener

Ian Cooke

Petra Biberbach

Andy Inch

Monica Lennon (Central Scotland) (Lab)

Petra Biberbach

Monica Lennon

Dr Inch

Dr MacLeod

Ian Cooke

The Convener

Petra Biberbach

The Convener

Dr MacLeod

The Convener

Dr Inch

The Convener

Petra Biberbach

Ian Cooke

The Convener

Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con)

Petra Biberbach

Dr Inch

The Convener

Dr MacLeod

Petra Biberbach

The Convener

Ian Cooke

The Convener

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The Convener

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

Petra Biberbach

The Convener

Petra Biberbach

The Convener

Petra Biberbach

The Convener

Petra Biberbach

The Convener

Petra Biberbach

The Convener