Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021

Official Report 647KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Charities (Disclosure of Information to Designated Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2020 (SSI 2020/435)

---

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development and Use Classes) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2020 (SSI 2020/437)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of the Charities (Disclosure of Information to Designated Bodies) (Scotland) Order 2020 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development and Use Classes) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2020. I refer members to paper 3, which contains further details. The instruments were laid under the negative procedure, which means that the provisions will come into force unless Parliament agrees to motions to annul them. No motions to annul have been laid.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the instruments on 12 January 2021 and determined that it did not need to draw the attention of Parliament to them on any grounds within its remit.

Does anyone have any comments to make on either instrument? If so, please make clear which one you are referring to.

I want to make brief comments about the permitted development rights order.

Which instrument are you referring to?

I am talking about the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development and Use Classes) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2020. I am not against the order, but I have questions about how its implementation will be monitored to ensure that, if there are problems, they will be addressed.

Obviously, people have concerns about the changes. There is uneasiness and there are concerns about the size of masts and potential detriment to the visual impact of areas. I am keen on that being monitored.

I also note that there are concerns about agricultural buildings. I understand why what has been suggested has been suggested but, if lots of housing is built and developed in rural areas and developments in our towns and villages are not reinforced, that could have a cumulative impact. I am thinking of the town centre first principle. There might be opportunities in town centres.

I have had concerns about bike sheds. I very much support them, but I wonder about the guidance. There could be something about the style and quality of bike sheds in sensitive areas, such as conservation areas. There are bike sheds in such areas, but they do not impact on the quality of those areas. I am not against the change, because big cars and lorries can park outside people’s houses in those areas; it is simply a matter of getting a proportionate approach. Maybe councils could give good advice. I am not against the approach, but I am interested in whether there will be monitoring by the Scottish Government and feedback from local authorities over time.

Okay. That is now on the record.

I continue to believe that it is inappropriate to bring in pretty significant changes to the planning regime through negative instruments. We are faced with affirmative instruments that we have nothing to say about, because there really is nothing to say about them, but the minister has to appear before the committee to move a motion on an affirmative instrument, to take evidence, and to debate it. Today, we have no minister before us.

I contemplated lodging a motion to annul the instrument, but I decided not to, because everyone is too busy at this time, so doing so would have achieved little.

I agree with Sarah Boyack. I have concerns about agricultural development. The proposal to more than double the maximum size of agricultural buildings should be debated properly, because although that might reflect new agricultural practices, it does not change the potential impact that a building of 1,000m2 might have in a landscape that would be regulated by full planning controls for any other industry. I also note that private ways and hill tracks, which were meant to be reviewed in relation to the permitted development regime, have been relegated to phase 3 of the Government’s work. It is regrettable that that is not coming forward.

The instrument contains a lot of important measures, but it is regrettable that those measures have been introduced in Parliament such that there is no scope for meaningful debate; there is no meaningful way in which one could, for example, object to the doubling in size of agricultural buildings. However, I agree with the rest of the instrument.

Obviously, you know that whether an instrument is laid under negative or affirmative procedure is out of our control, but at least your comments are now on the record, and the Government will be made aware of them.

As nobody else has any comments to make, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments? Please indicate if you object. As no one is objecting, that is agreed.

That concludes the public part of the meeting.

11:22 Meeting continued in private until 12:00.