 Felly achos, a weld yw i'w bwysig y shakenfyn y 14 o gyfnod sy'n gyffredineth ar gyfer y gweithdaeth ff touches y". Felly, fod yn dod rymog yn gyfnod yn fagiaf ar gyfer y gwrddig, yn gyflodio'r Cau yn cyffredinadau yn garfffodol, oherwydd mae'n gweithio'r gyrddwyd yn gweithiol. Felly, mae'r gweithio'r gyrddwyd ar gyfer gwell yn cyfnod o'u gwerthoedd, am dweud i'r gweithdod ym mwy o'r peth. Din oes gynhwoc yma. Rwy'n gwneud o gael oedd gyntaf. Cymru wedi weld yna i gynhwyr iawn i amlwgol o'r teimlo, oherwydd o hyd oherwyddr o'r teimlo o'r teimlo o'r teimlo. Rydyn am eich gyd i mewn oedd ymlaen i gael o'r teimlo, oherwydd o'r teimlo o'r teimlo o'r teimlo o'r receptau, sy'n gyddw i'r teimlo drafodaeth o'r gwahanol. Felly, rydyn i'n gweithio'r lleolaeth gyda'r proceeding o'r llaw gwrth meddwl. Fy fyddo ininhwyr. Can I also welcome Caroline Dicks, head of affordable housing, and Lisa Bullan, planning team leader of Scotsia company. You're both very welcome. Good morning. Minister, I think you've got an opening statement for this morning. If you don't mind, convener, of course. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee today about local authority strategic housing investment plans, ships, as you've already called them. The purpose of the plans is to set out the council's strategic investment priorities for affordable housing over a five-year period in order to achieve the outcomes set out in their local housing strategy. We expect the document to set out investment priorities for affordable housing to demonstrate how these will be delivered to identify the resources required to deliver these priorities and to enable the involvement of key partners. I've brought the ships with me that I received just prior to Christmas to give folk an indication of the documentation. Some of them are much more comprehensive than others, and we'll come back to that, I'm sure. Ships are part of the process that supports the planning delivery of affordable houses across Scotland, and they are important in terms of engaging with stakeholders and housing providers to ensure that plans are deliverable. I therefore expect to see collaboration between local authorities, housing associations, communities, developers, the Scottish Government and, of course, other stakeholders in the ship development process. It's very important to say that ships are plans and not firm programmes, but they will be the key documents for identifying strategic housing projects to assist the achievements of the 50,000 affordable homes target. In setting out these plans, I therefore expect local authorities to over-program to ensure delivery should any slippage occur. At the committee meeting on 21 December, I agreed to send the committee some analysis of the ships that were submitted in December 2016. The overall picture that this gave us in terms of the 50,000 target was that we are making good progress, but we need to do more to increase the potential cushion. We should have, just in case, some schemes fail to come forward. The next ship is due for submission at the end of October 2017. Please be in no doubt, convener, that this Government is ambitious for housing. Access to quality affordable housing is a vital part of our drive to secure economic growth, promote social justice, strengthen communities and tackle inequalities. We are determined to increase and accelerate housing supply. We will support local authorities to deliver quality homes in mixed communities that fit local needs, delivering the right homes in the right places for the people of Scotland. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, minister. That is very helpful. During the last time you were at our meeting, you pledged to use the Christmas holiday period to look over some of these housing plans. I hope that that was an enjoyable festive period for you. It was a most enjoyable festive period for an anorak like myself, convener. Excellent. I have thought that for a time, minister. I have now got that on the record. I have a bit of a constituent's interest here, because I was looking at the numbers that you have provided, which are really helpful in terms of heading towards that 50,000 target. It really gives us something to follow through the years, and some committee members will be asking about that. I was particularly interested in house types, so I was keen to know. My biggest housing need that I get in my constituent and my colleagues are the same are large family homes. When I look at some of this data, I see unit numbers, and I see a breakdown between social rent, mid-market rent, low-cost home ownership, partnership support for regeneration and a total of units. What I do not get a flavour of is how many four-bedroom family homes are within that 50,000 mix, or in the next financial year for new start. Where would that information sit? That is a matter for local authorities. The ships provide that strategic overview. It is up to local authorities themselves to look at what housing need and demand is in their area, and to align their future planning to take account of that. Beyond that, convener, I have made it quite clear, as I have been speaking to local authorities, housing associations and other partners, that the subsidies that we provide are a baseline. If they want to talk to my officials about delivering more larger homes, for example four or five-bedroom homes, they can talk to officials about levels of flexibility. The same applies to wheelchair-accessible homes, where I am extremely keen to ensure that we are able to deliver for all the needs of the people. I am pleased that certain housing associations have been making great strides in providing that type of housing too. The ships themselves do not deal with the level of detail of housing types. That comes out later in terms of the delivery. You can be assured, convener, that I will continue to spread the message that I have about how willing we are as a Government to talk to local authorities and other providers about delivering such homes. That is helpful. It seems that the numbers exist, but they exist across 32 local authorities if we were to go and look at the local housing strategies. We hope that the local housing strategies articulate with the ships, but the Government does not do an analysis by house type of what the local housing strategy says for 32 local authorities. We take local authorities on trust that they have that right, but it turns into those documents that we are calling as ships. Who monitors local authorities to make sure that they are getting the spread of house types accurate and correct for local needs and demands? I think that we always face the dilemma in Government where some folks say that we are prone to overly centralising and others say that we are not centralising and controlling enough. We have to trust local authorities to ensure that they do the right thing in terms of analysing the need in their particular area. I know from my previous life as a councillor that I took a great interest in what we were delivering at that time. At a time when there was not very much building, it has to be said and I am sure that the other ex-local authority members around the table did likewise. Beyond that, we have in place regional teams on the ground across the country who are having regular discussions with local authorities, housing associations and other stakeholders about delivery from the ships, looking at their local housing strategies and all other aspects. Those discussions with local authorities with my officials on the ground continue, but it is in the interest of every local authority to make sure that what they are delivering is the right housing in the right places for the people in their areas. I suppose that there is a difference between monitoring local authorities and dictating to local authorities. Those would be two separate things. I absolutely agree with you that we should not be dictating to local authorities. They know their communities best and it is for them to get the strategy right in relation to that. However, the Scottish Government may have a view on how many large family homes went across the country. I do not know if the Scottish Government does have a view on that. If the Scottish Government does have a view on that, you would want to make sure that when you add up those numbers across 32 local authorities, you are getting somewhere close towards that. Does the Scottish Government have a view on how many large family homes went across the country? I think that, convener, I come back to the point that it is up to local authorities themselves to analyse this and to ensure that their local housing strategies are absolutely right. What I would say to you is that I am doing everything possible by saying that we will be flexible to make sure that local authorities can deliver the larger housing that they need in their areas. It is important that we use the expertise of the local authorities who should know exactly what is required and for me to ensure that the barriers are taken down so that they can deliver those houses in their particular areas. I have a final question before I move to a supplementary question. I may be a lone voice in this committee, but I have no idea, minister. We will have to reflect on the evidence that we get after our session is complete. However, if this committee decided that there was interest in just trying to assure ourselves in relation to the 32 local authorities and that they had a good balance in relation to the house types that they were seeking to develop across Scotland and we saw a more systematic way of capturing that information, is that something that you and your officials might have been interested in discussing further with our committee? Convener, as you are very well aware and as members are very well aware, I am always more than happy to co-operate with this committee. If we can provide you with further information, feedback from our regional teams or whatever that may be, I am more than happy to provide you with that information. I want to explore this a bit further. I notice that we will get two tables from Spice. One is about unit information by tenure, and I notice that it is divided with social rent, mid-market rent, low-cost home ownership, partnership support for re-generation. If one looks at Glasgow, there are social rents over 4,000 units, and the other three categories come to just over three and a half thousand units. If we look at North Ayrshire, for example, all one, four, three, six are social rent and there are none of the other categories. In the similar situation in Ayrshire, where there are only 780 social rents, even in the population similar to North Ayrshire, none in each of those categories. What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage local authorities to ensure that they have that balance? I would encourage local authorities to do all that they can to ensure that need in their area is met. Mr Gibson mentions North Ayrshire. I always know that he has a keen interest in what is happening in his own constituency. I have to say that, in terms of North Ayrshire, Mr Gibson will know that I am quite pleased that some of the development is taking place there, particularly Cunningham Housing Association, who are a real get-up-and-go housing association providing homes that are required right across the Ayrshires and are about to move into Dumfries and Galloway. I would encourage every local authority and other stakeholders to take cognisance of the need in those particular areas. In terms of the specifics that Mr Gibson has asked for about mid-market rent and low-cost home ownership, I would have to get back to him with more detail about the situation in North Ayrshire and East Ayrshire. It is on the issue of units by type. First of all, I thank the minister for handing out the awards to Cunningham Housing Association at the reception that I hosted a week ago yesterday. In terms of those units by type, I have also noted the extraordinary differences in general needs and specialist provision varying by local authority. For example, Argyll and Bute has 1,115 general needs houses planned, but only one specialist provision, which seems to me remarkably odd. I will go back to North Ayrshire in my area, where there are 865 general needs houses, but 571 special provision Murray, 459 special provision compared to 723 general needs houses. In one local authority, general needs outnumber specialist provision by more than 1,000 whereas in the two other two local authorities I mentioned, it is 322. Edinburgh, for example, has 15 to 1 general needs houses, and the Ayrshire figures do not seem to add up at all. That is some type of error. However, there seems to be radical differences between the provision of general needs and specialist provision housing. If not alarmed, the Scottish Government would certainly draw a comment from you on that. I think I am going to look to my left to Ms Dicks, but in terms of the last outturn figures, the housing for general needs, 94 per cent of them were houses that are suitable for varying needs. The homes for life concept, basically, we are talking about. Although we are talking about general needs, we are getting much better at ensuring that those homes can be adaptable. Beyond that, it would be fair to say that I have been looking carefully in terms of specialist provision and making sure that specialist provision is countered for. We have, of course, in recent times published, as a Government, the Fairer Scotland for disabled people plan, which I am trying to find at this moment, Mr Gibson, where we set out quite clearly what our ambition is. That is working together with disabled people's organisations and the housing sector. On how we improve choice and availability of accessible housing, ensuring that the housing-focused action in that delivery plan will help to support more accessible homes throughout the country. We will continue to work with local authorities, disabled people and other stakeholders, to make sure that realistic targets are set within local homes. We will continue to work with local housing strategies for the delivery of wheelchair-accessible housing. Some 13 per cent of the housing that is outlined in ships are housing in this regard. Beyond that, convener, of late, in my travels, of which there have been plenty again recently, I visited new developments, which have a fair number of wheelchair-accessible houses, including a visit to Arden in Glasgow, a Glen Oaks development there the other week, where within that development, which I cannot remember if it was 42 or 48 houses there, four of those houses were wheelchair-accessible. One of those houses had been allocated to a family with a six-year-old daughter who was wheelchair-bound. They were particularly happy with the home. The young lass is a great baker, and the fact that the kitchen units and oven could be lowered is just fantastic for them. That is the kind of thing that we need to provide for families like that. Glen Oaks, when coming up with that development, had nobody on their waiting lists who required a wheelchair-accessible home, but went ahead with that development with those wheelchair-accessible houses, recognising that there was need in Glasgow, and went to other providers who quite quickly helped them fill those properties. I want not only the Glen Oaks of this world or the Rural Stirling Housing Association or Parkhead, which I recently visited as well, to take account of that. I want all housing associations and local authorities to look at that provision, making sure that the local housing strategy and the need that is shown is fulfilled. I have said all along, convener, that this is a housing programme for all of Scotland, and it is a housing programme for all of the people of Scotland, and I want to make sure that we get this absolutely right. I understand what you are saying. If you look at the national figures, they seem reasonable for specialist provision, but it seems that you have a 571 times more likely to get offered a specialist provision house in North Ayrshire than in Argyll and Bute. There seems to me to be a real issue about provision locally. I hope that that is something that the Scottish Government will certainly take back to local authorities to press for an increase in areas where there aren't. If we look at rehab housing, again, we see a huge disparity. Zero for Dundee, zero for Falkirk and zero for Inverclyde, but there are 102, for example, in North Ayrshire, 101 in North Lanarkshire, 648 in Glasgow, more than half in fact of all rehab houses in Scotland and Glasgow. Again, there seems to be a huge disparity in the provision of such services. I mean, Edinburgh has only got 11 rehab houses, for example, 520 in the Jennings area, so I wonder again what discussions that the Scottish Government is having about this particular issue and ensuring that the appropriate housing is made available for people who require that. I don't want to repeat myself, but I want to ensure that the appropriate housing is available for folk right across the country. In terms of the detail that Mr Gibson has asked for there, we will provide more detail to the committee. Beyond that, I'd like to assure the committee again that the regional teams across the country continue to have these discussions about what the needs of particular areas are. I don't have the level of detail that Mr Gibson requires for individual local authorities here, but we will certainly get back to the committee with further answers on that and give you an indication of what the folk on the ground are discussing with local authorities in that regard. That's really helpful, Mr Gibson. That's that theme again about trying to assure ourselves that there's a consistency of approach across 32 local authorities, including in the house types as well as specialist housing. Mr Simpson. Thanks, convener. Thanks for coming, minister. I just want to look a bit at the £50,000 affordable homes target. I wonder if, just for the record, you could tell us how many units are planned for in the ships, because there seems to be what there is a shortfall if you can compare that with £50,000. Given that that's the case, how confident are you and how do you plan to fill that gap? Within the ships themselves, the recent analysis shows that affordable housing completions for the £50,000 period—that's 2016 to 2021—are estimated to be £44,891. That does not include completions from 1718 from the national programme. The national programme includes things like the Homeowner Support Fund, the open market share equity scheme and the National Housing Trust and the LAR. Onze continues to contribute at the current rate. That's 1,700 completions per annum, so that could contribute a further 6,800 units over the period 2017 to 2021. A further 8,859 completions are identified in 2021-22, and some of those may be capable of being accelerated into the £50,000 period. I am keen, as I think we all are, to make sure that we have a cushion. As I said in my opening remarks, we know that often there is slippage. I want to make sure that there is over-programming and a cushion so that we meet that target. I hope that that is clear enough for Mr Simpson. That is clear. I wonder how realistic you think that the ships are, because you said in your opening remarks that some are more comprehensive than others, which tend to indicate that you are not very happy with some of them. I wonder if you can give us more detail on that. You also said that there are plans and not-firm programmes. Given that that is the case, I wonder how confident you are that those figures are accurate. In terms, convener, of the individual ships put forward by local authorities, some of the detail put forward by some of the local authorities was vast, where they are identifying sites and housing types and the entire gamut. Other local authorities in December submitted numbers only in terms of the amount of houses that they expected to bring forward. We have expanded on that and the detail has been teased out in most places because of teams in the ground talking to local authorities. As we move on, confidence grows. However, in some regards I am an optimist, but in other regards I am a pessimist. I want to make absolutely sure that we deliver our ambitious target during the course of this parliamentary term. Discussions will continue to be had to try and get firmed up proposals. There have been some changes during the course of that period, December to now, things that have occurred that have filled me with some joy. I was particularly worried about delivery in certain parts of Scotland. It seems that some folk have stepped up to the plate and that delivery looks much more likely now than it previously did. I would not go as far as to say that I am filled with the ultimate amount of optimism in that regard. However, I would say that my glass is three quarters full. We have a situation where the programme itself is leading to a situation where some housing associations, for example, are moving into areas where they have never carried out any business before. We talked about Cunningham Housing Association earlier, which is mainly delivered in the airshores. However, it is now moving to Dumfries and Galloway, and that will be a great boon to the south-west of Scotland in terms of what it will be able to deliver there. That will help them in meeting their social housing requirements in the south-west. The one thing that I can assure the committee is that I will continue to talk to my officials all of the time to make sure that we continue to bolster that number and provide an even greater cushion so that we reach that target of 50,000 and in particular the target of 35,000 houses for social rent. I will continue, of course, to update the committee as and when it will require me to. Is it okay one more? It is long, yes. It does relate. I accept that you say that your glass is three quarters full, but what about the other quarter? Are there any areas of the country that we as a committee might want to be looking at? I think that the south-west was an area where I had a particular concern. That is an area where I have less of a concern now. I will continue to look at all parts of the country to make sure that everybody is benefiting from this, as I have said numerous times to the committee. I have been all over the place talking to folk because I think that the best way of dealing with this is to get the on-the-ground knowledge from people about what is practical and what is not. I have to say that the conversations that I have been having are pretty positive, but my eyes and ears in the ground, Ms Dixon, Ms Bullan's colleagues and regional officers are the folk that I rely on to be able to say to me, well, this is going well, you may want to keep an eye on this, and they are the ones who communicate constantly about what is happening, or not as the case may be, but in the main it is what is happening. The Government advice in terms of ships advocates a co-production approach, the idea of being to obviously involve people as early as possible in that process. I just wonder if the minister could perhaps give some examples of where stakeholders have engaged with local authorities as part of that process, perhaps with an eye to sharing good practice at national level where it is being done well? Let me relate a conversation that I had only yesterday with CCG who are providing manufacturing houses off-site, and they were talking about the co-operation that they were having with East Ayrshire Council. I think that the level of co-operation there is quite high. Again, if we stick to East Ayrshire, their relationship with the main housing association in the area that again is Cunningham is again very, very good. As we go to various places, people are talking about good levels of co-operation. If we go back a few months in Strathblane, rural Stirlingshire housing association, we are talking about the good co-operation that they had with Stirling Council, Scottish Government and other partners to deliver the first social housing. In that village for 40-50 years. I think that the level of co-operation is pretty high out there. People also know that if they face any difficulties or any barriers in what they are trying to achieve, my door is open. Folk are not backward in coming forward and having discussions about various barriers, but those barriers do not seem to be between local authorities and housing associations, for example. When I first took on the role, one of the barriers that there was was between some of the developers and Scottish Water. Scottish Water have taken action to change their workforce to make sure that they are more delivery focused and they have improved a fair bit. I always say though that if anybody feels that there is any particular problem, I would be grateful if they passed it on to me because I can deal with these things unless I know about them. In terms of the review process for ships, what kind of feedback have you had from local authorities and what kind of feedback do you give to local authorities as part of that review process? Again, I am reliant on the regional teams to go and speak to local authorities to hear their views and how they think that the process has gone and also to feed back the views from government. I have to say that we have got an extremely good set of people on the ground who are in constant communication with authorities and other partners. They are the eyes and ears that I rely on. I am a convener at this point to bring in Ms Dicks to talk a little bit more about what those officials are doing at this moment. The review of the ships that come in is a process that was agreed with COSLA in terms of communications with local authorities. There are a number of areas that officials look at in our area teams when they are submitted. The kind of things that they consider are the things that the minister has already mentioned so that the projects that they have listed as priorities align with the strategy that they have set out for their area. We also look at the feasibility of delivery in terms of some of the timescales that are being set out for the projects. The minister talked about some projects not happening and making sure that there is enough capacity in the programme should that happen for other things to come forward. We look at the resources that they are setting out. Obviously, that is part of what they set out in the ship. The money that is needed to take the projects forward and again that has been covered by the committee, things like how stakeholders have been consulted. When we review the ships, those are the kind of areas that we look at. Then we write back to each local authority based on the ship, just covering any points based on that. If I may add to that, because those are all of the positives. During the course of some discussions earlier on in the year, some of the community housing associations in certain parts of the country, one part in particular, were not quite happy about the lack of input that they felt that they had into the ship in that particular area. That is the kind of thing that we will feed back to the local authority as well. I have said before in answer to questions at the committee and answers to Mr Simpson. I am keen that community housing associations and community-led housing associations are involved in every part of the process. The feedback that we get back, we will relate to them and urge them to do things a little bit differently when it comes to the next ship in October. Following up some questions that Gibson asked earlier about specialist provision, you have suggested that 13 per cent of planned developments within the ships are for specialist provision. Can you say something about how that figure was arrived at and whether you think that is an appropriate figure given with an ageing population and an increased focus on the need to develop independent living? Again, I would say to Mr Wightman convener that local authorities have got to assess their own needs in their area. I think that they have got to take account of changing demographics when they are making their planning assumptions. I think that the 13 per cent figure will get officials to talk how they have come to that number. The key thing for me is not just the 13 per cent specialist, but it is ensuring that the stock that we are delivering is capable of adaptation. The fact that we have reached that figure in the last outturn of 94 per cent of the housing that is being delivered for varying needs is an important one to have reached. Obviously, there is room for further improvement, but not much. We will continue to make sure that we create that situation of homes for life. In terms of the 13 per cent figure, I will ask Mr Dix to come in. As we mentioned earlier, the projects are based very much on what the local authority assesses as the local needs. As Mr Gibson mentioned, that varies across different local authorities. Some local authorities might be on much higher priority on providing those types of projects, others less so. We can correlate those figures up nationally. At the moment, based on the current ships, that is what it shows. As the minister said, those are live documents and they will be updated again in October this year. That figure might change, it might increase. One of the things that we would look at would be if, for example, an individual local authority in its strategy was saying that housing for specialist provision was a particular priority, then we would look to follow that through to see in the ship that that actually showed those types of projects being in their plans for funding going forward. That is the kind of thing that we do when we are looking to assess the ships when they come in. The 13 per cent figure is just what the local authorities are saying to us at the moment. They want to provide over the next few years in the affordable programme. As I am out and about, I am making it quite well known that, in terms of the flexibilities that are there in terms of subsidy, we will look very carefully at bids for a higher subsidy level to provide the likes of wheelchair accessible housing. I think that that message is getting through and I would reiterate at the point that many of the housing providers, housing associations in particular that have been to visit of late are taking cognisance of what is required and are actually delivering wheelchair accessible housing on the ground at this moment. I suppose that what was behind my question is the fact that we have had evidence in the budget review session, for example, from independent living in Scotland to argue that in some areas the provision is fine and in other areas it is not fine. To what extent is the Scottish Government not just monitoring the match between the local housing strategy and the ship, but that local authorities in certain parts of Scotland are indeed making enough provision for people with specialist needs and can step in to encourage more if and where that is needed? I would encourage any disability group to speak to local authorities and get involved in the formulation. We talked about the disability action plan and I think that it is absolutely vital that local authorities listen to groups in their area where folks do not feel that there is the provision. In some cases, I am going to be very careful in what I say here because I do not want to identify individuals. I am aware of situations where a wheelchair accessible house has been built in a particular area to meet the needs of someone in that area who would have had to have moved away if that had not happened. I think that local authorities, housing associations and other partners should be looking very closely at that kind of need so that we do not have those kinds of circumstances. I have said that people should talk to local authorities. I am also willing to listen to folk about their experiences in particular areas. Again, I encourage local authorities and other providers in areas where there is felt to be not enough housing to meet the needs of people. I do not want to meet the demand to take advantage of the flexibilities within the subsidies. As always, if colleagues come across any particular difficulties in their own patches, I am willing to hear about that and do what I can to encourage a greater provision if that is required in particular areas. We have touched today on the mix and the size of developments. It would be quite useful to find out how the decisions are taken about what projects are finally approved and how they become approved and how transparent that whole process is. How confident you are about those projects and the needs and the budgets within those projects and how they are identified for housing and the strategies that I have put forward. Again, we are reliant on local authorities to scrutinise exactly what is required in their area, where it is required and what is required. Mr Stewart will know having just recently retired from a council that that level of scrutiny can be quite high in local authorities. Beyond that, in terms of scrutiny from Government side in terms of making sure that the resources that we are providing are being utilised in the best possible ways, again we are reliant on our folk on the ground. As I am out and about, I come across these folk on a regular basis and it would be fair to say that their knowledge of the projects is fairly high, very high in fact. Again, a combination of the right project management and scrutiny at local authority level, but beyond that oversight that our folk on the ground are taking to make sure that the resources that we are spending are being spent right on the right things, on the right places for folks throughout the country. How do we look at the overall budgets that are met and managed centrally with those that are managed locally? In terms of the budgets that are held centrally, there is probably no greater scrutiny in some regards than me in making sure that every penny goes as far as it possibly can. In terms of the moneys that are given directly to councils through the affordable housing programme, I again have made it very clear to local authorities that if they are unable to spend the resources that they are being given, then I will have no qualms about moving money elsewhere. To authorities that are able to use that resource. Again, that is another assurance, if you like, that we deliver the 50,000 target. That is something that I do not want to do. I would rather that authorities spend their full allocations, but if that does not happen then I will not be afraid to move resources to other places who are going to be able to spend it and deliver. Thank you very much, convener. I just briefly on that line of questioning, minister, and thanks for joining us this morning. Could the resource then be used for, I suppose, back to some, Kenneth Gibson was exploring earlier about rehabilitation, if that is the right word, or off-the-shelf type purchase, but could the resource be used to buy back housing into the public sector? Again, that is a matter for local authorities, if they want to do so. What I would say is where it can be demonstrated that the use of grant acquire housing for rent off the shelf is the most appropriate method of meeting the housing needs identified within a particular council area. It is consistent with the priorities that are in the ship and in other plans. Grant subsidy can be made through the affordable housing supply programme to do that. We are aware that a number of local authorities have purchased ex-local authority properties with the support of the AHSP grant. I have no difficulty with that as long as it meets the needs within that particular area. Really helpful, minister. I am now going to outline, very briefly, identifying the family, a constituency case of mine. It is the third time that I have raised the case. I think that it shows the policy challenges that we have and what you said was very interesting. An elderly person has previously bought their council house. It is maybe a second floor flat, a one-bedroom in perfectly good condition, failing health starts, and they are kind of in poverty. There is not much of an asset there. That house is not any good for them. They can feel a little bit trapped in it. I am delighted that the Housing Association is considering buying that flat back in Glasgow, but the person needs alternative accommodation. Is there anything to stop housing grants in Glasgow funding that purchase for the Housing Association and identifying a suitable accommodation for that individual? That frees up a social rented tenant elsewhere. I am just trying to identify where that grant would sit, and whilst it might not actually show up on the £50,000 target, that is a new social rented house brought back into the sector. Of course, it should show up on the £50,000 target. It is just to make sure that each of the budgets talks to each other if that makes sense. We are joining the dots over this to make sure that this particularly vulnerable constituent is life would be transformed and a lot of stress would go away and a new house would come back into social rent also. It is difficult for me to talk about an individual case convener, as you well know. However, what I would say is that I would expect common sense to apply. If that house were to be purchased back into local authority or Housing Association control, that would be one added to the target. That is a new home that has previously not been available and is now available. It is difficult for me to judge a particular case without knowing the full detail of the property, the circumstances and various other things. However, what I would look at in that regard is for common sense to apply for the local authority, the Housing Association, to work in partnership to try and find the best possible outcome for folks. That is very helpful, Minister, because up until now I did not realise that the Housing Association could make the case to the local authority to get grant funding to buy that back. I thought that the Housing Association would have to use their own resources to do that. That is really interesting and helps me out in my local area. I am just clarifying some of this. This can be done in a mixture of ways. If you want to, convener, if you write to me, I will respond back with what we think is possible. Obviously, at the end of the day, it is a matter for the local authority and the Housing Association, but we can provide you with the details of how that could happen. I will certainly do that, Minister. I think that we have got progress for the constitution. It was the wider policy position that I was fascinated and very helpful. I also took the opportunity to read through the Glasgow housing strategy from 2017 to 2022, while my colleagues were asking whether 100 pages read through some of it. What I did garner from that was that 15,000 new builds are the target in Glasgow with 70 per cent of them to be social rent. That sounds quite impressive. I may have missed it. I could not see in that what the house types were, but I will go back and check that one anyway. What I did see was that the overcrowding levels in the city of Glasgow were 17.4 per cent. The national average is 9 per cent. That is an indicator for myself. It may work out the strategy. I have a brief look at it this morning. It may take that into account when it goes for its new build programme. That is another example of what I think the minister would have to say. There are certain indicators that would be hoping that each local authority would use consistently and the Government would monitor nationally in relation to aspects such as overcrowding. There is an example in Glasgow where the way above the national average would suggest that larger new build homes would be pretty important. For every larger new build home that you get, you move an overcrowded family into a new build home and you free up another tenancy. You have a double hit in relation to that. Is that feature overcrowding in your analysis of ships? What you have read, convener, is Glasgow's local housing strategy. I would expect Glasgow's local housing strategy to play a major part in the formulation of the delivery on the ground. Those are matters for local authorities. I have made my situation very clear in the fact that we are more than willing to have discussion about flexibility and grant subsidy if folk want to build houses with more bedrooms to resolve some of the overcrowding problems that you have mentioned. I refer back to my last visit to Glasgow, which was a couple of weeks ago, to Arden. The houses that were being built there were larger family houses. In some cases, townhouses were built on three floors, which meets the needs of that particular area and was providing much-needed regeneration in a poorer part of the city. It would be wise for the local authority in co-operation with its housing association partners, including those in the community housing association sector, to take complete cognisance of what the local housing strategy that you have read says and make sure that the on-the-ground delivery reflects exactly what is required in the city of Glasgow. That is very helpful for our committee to get our head around how each of those strategic documents feed into meeting that 50,000 target, but also meeting the housing need on the ground. That is what we are wrestling with as a committee. That answers helpful. Would any of my colleagues want to come in for any further questions? Minister, before we wind up today's session, if you put anything else on the record in relation to the matter that you do not have the chance to say this morning, is there time for that? I would like to thank the committee once again for allowing me to come here today. I am quite sure that, over the course of the next few years, you will continue to scrutinise the housing programme. The committee should know that I am very much focused on delivery to ensure that we reach that 50,000 affordable homes target. 35,000 of those for social rent. Of course, the Government's commitment is backed up by that £3 billion worth of investment over the course of the Parliament. The only other thing that I would like to put on record is my thanks to partners across the country, whether that be local authorities, housing associations, developers and other stakeholders, including communities themselves, who have not been backward in coming forward and telling me what they would like to see. Without them, we would not be able to do that. I would like to thank them very much and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to give evidence today. Thank you, minister, and thank you to your team for coming along as well. That is a nice way to end this particular session, so that concludes the item when the agenda can be suspended briefly. Thank you very much. I can now reopen this session of the committee and we turn to agenda item 2, which is post legislative scrutiny of the High Heads of Scotland Act 2013. The committee will now take evidence from local authorities on its post legislative scrutiny. I would like to welcome the panel. We have with us Kevin Wright, environmental planner Aberdeen City Council, Alster Hamilton, services manager from Fife Council and Paul Kettles, planning enforcement officer north from Perth and Cunross Council. I invite each member of the panel to make short opening remarks and we will start with Kevin Wright. As an opener, I would like to say that we found the legislation overall of much benefit in the city. We have not had the greatest number of formal applications, but what we have seen is a huge number of inquiries that the end result has been resolution due to the legislation being in place and not actually requiring an application to ourselves. I would certainly say from that perspective being incredibly beneficial. I think probably my main concern about the review of the High Heads is, in our experience in Aberdeen, what we've experienced is numerous applications for what is becoming to be regarded as non-heads. In our experience, more trees than hedges. I would take the opportunity to flag that I would have concerns about this potential review expanding the remit of the High Heads Act. In terms of Fife's experience, it's similar to my colleagues here. There was an initial flurry of applications at the start of the introduction of the legislation where I think it was representative of perhaps historic cases. Or issues that had been in existence for a while. The legislation was seen as the mechanism to advance those cases. In pursuing those, that led to an initial larger number of applications. I suppose for some of those people it probably heightened their expectation of what could be addressed and then that was then distilled, I suppose, through what actually could be applied in terms of the legislation and the definition in relation to what hedge is or isn't. And probably what we'll come on to maybe a bit later about where that sits in relation to trees and legal definitions and things. As I said in my submission in Fife, we had 23 formal applications over the course of the period that the legislation has been in place. And that probably might seem relatively low. And as I say, of those eight have gone through, if you like, the whole process to some form of resolution or rejection. And I think what I have said in my submission is that, while that demand or number may not seem large for those people who have actually achieved a resolution of the issue, that has undoubtedly been important and a success for them. March, Paul Kettles. Hi, good morning. Yeah, I think I could reiterate, I suppose, the comments my colleagues have made from, we've experienced similar scenarios in 2014 when the act came into vogue. The Perth and Canos Council received a flurry of applications and in total, to date, we've received 21. And of those 21, seven, so a third, we've deemed as not a hedge. The remaining 14 were subject to high hedge notices being served. And of those, many of them, seven were subject to appeals process with the Scottish Government, the DPA, but ultimately most of those were varied of those that were appealed. So, as a consequence of the act coming in, we've had 12 hedges, in effect, out of the 21 applications, subject to being cut. And we've had people saying how grateful they were that the legislation has come. So that they were, as I say, some of these applicants had been waiting for several years, I had correspondence, you know, dating back 15 years between lawyers over some of the situations they'd experienced. So they were very grateful for the council taking action under the legislation. So I think we have had, obviously, the issue of people submitting applications for things that we would not consider to be hedges. So, you know, woodlands, for example, which has, you know, given rise to a bit of concern from a lot of people. But at the end of the day, it's not a high trees act, it's a high hedges act. And I know there's been a lot of discussion about the definition, the legal definition, and a trust that will perhaps may get some clarity out of this process. Thank you very much. We did have a previous evidence session. I'm sure colleagues on the committee will want to pick up many of the points. But given what Mr Kettles has just said, I think that moves us quite nicely on to what Andy Wightman wishes to explore with the panel, so if I could ask Andy Wightman. Thank you, convener, and thanks for coming in today. I must say, when I first looked at this act, which says it's an act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision about hedges, which interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of residential properties, I was surprised not to find a definition of a hedge. Some of the confusion appears, or some of the concern that we've heard from the occupiers of properties who wish to use this legislation appears to hinge on the question of when is a hedge, not a hedge. And the definition that is given in the act is a definition of a high hedge. That demands that it be a hedge in the first place. And I think Aberdeen, your evidence has articulated this well in the opening paragraphs of your evidence to us. I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on the extent to which this is a central problem with the legislation and or with people's understanding of what the legislation is. I think it's probably a bit of a two-part issue. We appear to be quite clear in what we consider to be a hedge, as opposed to trees. I think the big problem here lies in as much as people put a lot of hope in this legislation to resolve issues and telling somebody that they cannot use this piece of legislation. We deem that the trees, the vegetation that is at the heart of the issue, isn't construed to be a hedge. As I say, you'll see in my submission we have a number of tests that we utilise to try and distill that down. I think to put it into some context as to how big an issue this is with the legislation. We have probably only just about resolved two cases now that have been going on for probably the best part of two years of massive amount of correspondence backwards and forwards. The initial stage probably over the span of a year with these two correspondence were trying to explain our position. We were always saying no, but we were getting dozens of questions back which we were happy to answer. It got to the stage that we were spending so much time on it that we then had to direct those applicants to our complaints procedures because really we couldn't get people to understand or maybe not understand but to take on board. Because it's such a motivation for people, there's that sort of refusal whereas I think if you're not involved in the situation you can quite easily say whether it's a hedge or whether it's not. I think that's probably the biggest failure of the act at the moment is that there isn't clear clarification on that. Mr Wightman, you wish to come back. I can and will ask other panel members to comment first. Here others would be useful. Would any of the other members wish to comment? Mr Hamilton. Thank you chair convener. I think what we've tried to do in fight, I mean it's a similar experience. Our customer guidance has included sort of pictures and general information is to try and I suppose as much as anything manage expectations about what the legislation is. Can deliver and what it can achieve for people in terms of what is and isn't a hedge under the terms of the definitions. I think I would agree with Kevin in so much as the fact that there perhaps isn't another route to take a definitive or achieve a definitive legal conclusion as to what is and isn't a hedge. Would it's left to some degree perhaps a subjective judgment just with the local authority and then the public or the complainer feels that they have to continually enter into that discussion with the local authority to gain clarity or satisfaction that it's justified in terms of the decision the local authority has taken. Thank you Mr Kettles. I do think that the way that the act has been narrated in terms of the inclusion of two or more trees or shrubs has led to a lot of confusion perhaps and members of the public asserting that the local authority are electing to interpret it in certain ways. Certainly in the statement that we have put together we are suggesting that perhaps a way around that is to take that sentence out and basically just to have paragraph 1, B and C insofar as the act applies in relation to a hedge rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level and forms a barrier to light. I think that a lot of the issues that have come about we've had many people approaching us in advance of perhaps putting an application and saying well well this be a hedge or not and quite often even on the telephone they're saying we asked them what is it. Well it's maybe three trees in a neighbour's back garden and of course the way that the act has been narrated they're thinking well this perhaps would make a valid application and I think that's where as I have said it's not a high trees act it's a high hedges act. Fundamentally it must be a hedge first and obviously defining that is difficult. My background before I came into planning was horticulture and it's quite clear if someone says design me a hedge it's quite a process of going through the species that you use, the planting arrangement, the density and I suppose to me it's relatively clear what a hedge is and what a hedge isn't. But I think that the way that the act has been narrated I think that it does give rise to some confusion. That's very helpful and we have been sent a copy of a letter from Aberdeen City Council to one of the applicants in Aberdeen making it very clear that in your view you cannot consider any application that doesn't actually in the first instance relate to a hedge. It's fair to say I think that other local authorities haven't been quite so clear and robust in that test and have been prepared to admit for consideration vegetation that meets the tests of A, B and C but actually isn't a hedge and that only becomes clear at a later stage. Aberdeen, you provide as you say some tests that you apply to what hedge is. These are not however statutory tests so given that this all resolves around legal meanings would it be helpful in your view in a matter of principle to introduce a new section to make it clear that this act only applies to hedges and a hedge is X, Y and Z before then going on to say that nothing other than hedge is a hedge. Would that help to resolve some of the difficulties? I think that that's probably exactly what we need. Going back to my colleague's comment a minute ago, the fact that a hedge has to be a hedge initially is often overlooked by people who are looking to put an application in a hedge. What do they jump to initially is the three tests and of course nobody is sat here saying that a row of trees cannot have the same effect and so can certainly meet those three tests but a row of trees is not a hedge. In the act itself as well as the guidance making it abundantly clear that that is the first test and then possibly winning the guidance some further definition I think that would be incredibly useful. Thank you very much. Before I call in Mr Gibson can I just clarify something myself with Mr Kettles please given your horticultural background. We've just heard Mr Wright say a row of trees is not a hedge but originally when the act was being considered it was precisely rows of trees, i.e. rows of Leilande trees which had been planted as hedges that were causing problems because they were so quick growing and so dense and cutting out light and enjoyment. When is a row of trees a hedge? I would say that it's down to the pattern arrangement of the planting. I've dealt with typical situations where Leilande are planted at 600 or 700 millimetres centres in a row along a boundary and there's no dispute that is a hedge. It forms a solid boundary barrier. However I've also dealt with loss in Cyprus Leilande I in a garden that has been planted just to form part of a garden with planting underneath it and it's forming a barrier to light but I would say it's not a hedge because there are certainly clear gaps and the pattern of planting, the arrangement did not resemble a hedge in any way. The fact that tree planting doesn't morph into a hedge just because the crowns coalesce. You have to look at where the stems are and the relationship between them, the pattern. But would you agree that if someone planted Leilande as a hedge and confirmed that, the person for instance that moved into their house after them or into the house next door and got that, it was the evidence that we heard where they then got confirmation from the owners of the other house that it had been planted as a hedge even though it was a row of trees because it's Leilande and it was indeed high, that could constitute a hedge even though it's a row of trees? Yes, but again I would say that each case is looked at on its own merits. Thank you very much, Mr Gibson. I have to say that the evidence that we've received this morning was certainly disappointing to all the witnesses who had it around table discussion because from what I've heard this morning it appears that all the witnesses want to neuter this already fairly toothless legislation further. My constituents who have raised concerns about this are not only at balk having to pay the outrageously high fee, which is not returned to them by the person if it's found against them, but they also have the situation whereby there's all the semantics about what is not a hedge. Quite clearly the meaning of the legislation, the spirit of the legislation meant it clear that if someone's quality of life is being ruined by having a Leilande or whatever it happens or some shrub or even trees blocking out the light and making their life a misery then it should be dealt with. If I've got an 80-year-old constituent who buys a house in large with a life savings of a husband suffering from dementia and suddenly a couple of years later there's huge trees sprouting up, blocking the light, why should that person not get restitution? There's some talk about what constitutes a hedge or not about the legislation. The spirit of the legislation was quite clear on that. Surely the legislation should not be made more toothless by making it just a hedge as people would understand a hedge but to include the things that you want to exclude. What we meant to do then, what people meant to do about high trees, somebody just meant to be able to plant trees wherever they like and ruin someone else's view. We need people who actually came to this committee who had trees completely surrounding their entire property on all four sides and were told, tough it's not a hedge, go away. To people who are not affected by this it can seem well so what but to people who are directly affected it's a real quality of life issue and these people are often very elderly and they get deeply upset. Mr Wright talked about people who have corresponded with you umpteen times, that is because they feel that they have been let down by this legislation. I can honestly say that across party the intention of the MSPs involved in this was not to have a very narrow piece of legislation but a legislation which could be interpreted in a common sense point of view and I'll just say one other point before the panel come in. For example, we've had evidence of people deliberately trying to get around the legislation by chopping every second tree, knowing full or lay land I, whatever you call it, hedge, knowing that it'll sprout sidewards, having the same adverse impact on the person who does the complaint and councils have just shrugged their shoulders and went sorry it's not a row of two trees, well maybe it's not a row of two trees above two metres but certainly below two metres. Surely that the council should be taking a more flexible, more human approach to this and looking at what is the impact on people's lives are and saying well do you know something. As far as we're concerned this has been deliberately planted with a view to obscuring someone's life whether it's known a straight line or it's slightly curved or it's known a specific hedge shouldn't really be the issue surely it should be the impact on the lives of the people who are blighted by this. I will need to bring in all of the panel because Mr Gibson has asked if the intention is to neuter the legislation but I'll start with Mr Wright. I think probably the first point I would come back with is that there are a number of cases in Aberdeen where I would love to use this legislation. There is one particularly heart breaking case I've been dealing with for probably two years now and I very much see the stress of this citizen. The situation he's in with young children and his first home and the impact that he has. However in his instance the trees do not constitute a hedge. We as a local authority are asked to implement this piece of legislation. If I'm asked to justify my decision I cannot stand up in front of a group of people and say well do you know what the legislation says this but I thought I'd be a little bit flexible about it. Flexibility when it comes to whether it's a hedge or whether it is trees planted not as a hedge is not within the legislation. We don't have the legal opportunity to do that could I just one other point. I think it's very easy now as I say you know we've had a number of very emotive cases where we would like to do this. However we've had other cases where we as a local authority have to quite literally at times sit on the fence between properties. On one hand we have somebody who is looking to remove trees from somebody else's land. We have to look at the impact and indeed the legislation requires us to look at the impact fairly on the owners of those trees as well. Just to turn sort of the scenario around slightly we have one particular case in Aberdeen again that's been going on for quite some time whereby we have a house on D side which has probably been in place for about 200 years. We have very many many mature trees within that garden and certainly the back of the garden. Now that garden used to back onto fields. About four years ago there was a brand new property built within what was quite honestly a reasonable distance away from mature trees but this house was put on the open market it wasn't the land wasn't bought and built by the owner. It was sold separately that person moved in two years ago and decided to seek an application to have those trees removed. Now personally I would say that that's incredibly unfair on the owner of those trees. They are trees they're not a hedge but we have somebody who chose to buy a property and move into a situation. Now I know there are only two scenarios but it's really just to highlight you know there are other parties involved and other owners. I think the common sense approach with the common sense approach would do that. I don't want anybody to see it. I've had a similar case and I looked at it and I said come on. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people who are planting stuff and deliberately trying to avoid legislation. I mean this year I raised for example about people chopping every second one down. Surely the council should say I'm sorry you're clearly trying to avoid the impact of this legislation. I mean Mr Kettles you weren't weak in the legislation frankly so it's just a hedge. I mean that's not what was intended. I can assure you that when we were debating and discussed this some years ago you know people did want to include things beyond what the public might recognise, walking along a street as a hedge. I'll bring Mr Kettles in first since you were named and then I'll come back to Mr Wright if he wants to see any further. What I would say is that as a planning enforcement officer we operate personally under the Town and County Planning Act. We have to operate within the terms of the Town and County Planning Act and whilst we look at situations and enforcement action is discretionary so there's a degree of perhaps subjectivity nevertheless. We have to remain within the terms of the act and in this case I think we are operating within the terms of the act. I think Perth and Crosk Council have in every application operated within the terms of the act because fundamentally it must be a hedge. Now I know that this could debate this for a long period of time but then the day I'm looking at it my colleagues are looking at applications and we consider that we're operating within the act and within the spirit of the act because it's not a high trees act. If you want to bring in legislation that is a high trees act then introduce it. I'm just wondering why you don't want to extend it to some trees given the fact. You seem to want to dilute it. Again no one's responded to the thing about what happens when somebody cuts every second every second they'll landeye down in order to get round the legislation. I think perhaps Mr Wright wanted to respond to that but I brought Mr Kettles in first so Mr Wright. I'd be happy to. Again this is somebody getting around the legislation. We haven't had this situation thankfully in Aberdeen. I think if we had received an application and then those works had been undertaken we would have to seek legal advice on whether we could still go forward with the application because ultimately it is the legislation that is pointing out what a high hedge is. Now if somebody removes every second tree as unfair as that is straight away by the definition that we currently have it is no longer a hedge. It is a row of trees. If they remove every second tree those canopies will not coalesce and therefore it's not a hedge. If it's not a hedge we can't currently use the legislation that we've got. One thing that I would say and I think part of it and it may help our discussions going forward is when we're talking of rows of trees and I think as we've all alluded to so far one of the things that we take into consideration is the spacing between those trees. I think Mr Smith you brought up a perfectly good question where you queried leilandii trees. If it's a row of leilandii trees is it a hedge it can be a hedge equally they can be individual trees. That would be like saying a beach hedge is a row of maintained beach trees. So I think you know we were saying about rows of trees but I was just madly flicking through the guidance for a particular sentence and this sentence states for example well spaced tree lines are not generally considered as a hedge even if the trees join to form a canopy. And I think going back to sorry I think Mr Whiteman's question to me would guidance on the types of subjects that I've raised as the sort of tests that we utilise be useful. Absolutely yes because then we would all be working to something that's defined. Briefly if you don't mind because you want to pick Mr Hamilton. It was just on a point I guess that was partly touched on but also I'd read the sort of dialect from the previous sort of public consultation. One thing I wanted to flag up was that there's this imagination that councils are avoiding using this piece of legislation. Probably takes me between maybe 10 and 15 hours to deal with a high hedge legislation application from start to finish over a period of time but maybe 10 15 hours. A number of the cases that we have dealt with one in particular I have racked up over 60 hours dealing with council of representations MSP representations going through our complaints procedures and indeed looking to answer to senior staff within my organisation. Personally speaking I would much prefer to be able to use the legislation. The work involved in telling somebody that we can't use the legislation is extensive. Thank you Mr Hamilton. Do you wish to neuter the legislation? No I don't and I think I would speak for all my colleagues that apply it that isn't the intention of what we would wish to do or indeed how it's applied. I think if Parliament wishes to expand and extend its remit then that is within their gift as part of how they consider the legislation further. I think it's important in terms of and I think Mr Gibson's passion highlights how emotive the subject can be. Part of the issue is that passion that we face as those that actually implement the legislation is on both sides. That is on perhaps what you might say is the aggrif party who has to alter their hedge and the party who is potentially affected by it. So in applying legislation the legislation itself firstly has to be robust enough to deal with that process because you're not only addressing the harm that's potentially arising from the hedge but also justifying why you have the right to affect someone else's property and what they wish to do with it. That principle is part of the basis of where planning legislation sits and obviously as I've said in my submission the high hedge legislation isn't implemented by planning services across the board in Scotland. There's some other services delivered but the other thing I wanted to pick up on as well if I may was the issue about the planting of a hedge and Kevin's picked up on that too is that you would have to be careful about that and the breadth of what the legislation sought to cover. Because if you started to apply that to trees that already exist in established areas and there are many residential areas in Scotland where there are mature trees houses planted within existing woodland areas or next to those that could have a significant consequence for the tree population. Okay there are some that are protected by tree preservation orders but you would need to be very careful in seeking to broaden that and no doubt some trees do have an impact on people. But if the principle of this legislation arose from the concerns about lillandii and the planting of hedges that would need to be a very careful consideration if the legislation was being sought to be more prescriptive or precise to deal with planting hedges and at what point that then becomes a problem. It was just the point that I did in my overlong first question which was basically it might have been not picked up was do you feel that if an application is successful the cost of that application should be borne by the person for whom it's found against? In other words if the applicant is dismissed then he or she should pay it but if it's successful then the person who has actually breached the law should pay it because at the moment people who make application feel that why should they have to pay up to £500 for example and not be restored to them if indeed they're found to be in the right. Mr Kettles you're nodding. I agree with you all heartedly that if someone, if we local authority serve a high hedge notice on a hedge owner then I do think that because they had had opportunity to address the issue and hadn't then we should seek to get perhaps half the fee back or some arrangement so that the applicant is refunded either in part or in the other. So I do agree with you. Thank you Mr Wright do you have an opinion? I would tend to agree however I think it's worthwhile noting where the fee actually came from in the first place in as much as in normal circumstances this would not have been a service that the council would offer so I believe as the introduction of the legislation this was a way that the council could recoup for their time used. I think all I would say is if I don't disagree with the point and I think it would only be fair given that somebody has had good opportunity in the first place to do it. What I would be keen to see is a good mechanism to ensure that the local authority didn't end out of pocket at the end of the day in dealing with these. Mr Hamilton? Yes I mean I think that's a good point and obviously part of when the legislation was drafted it was done so on the basis of it being the local authority as a last resort and the emphasis was very much on the basis of that the issue being resolved where it could be by mutual agreement and collaboration between both parties. Whether that's through formal solicitors or just neighbourly discussions which obviously would be the most beneficial way to do so that that was kind of implicit in the legislation. I think one of the other things to bear in mind that while it may perhaps seem unjust for the person who is affected by the hedge to pay the fee. If you then share that on to the person who also has to undertake, if you like, the mitigation work there wouldn't necessarily be an impetus on them to pay that if they're the ones having to undertake the work. So again I suppose that comes back to the point that Kevin's made about making sure that the recouping of the cost from the party who has to under do the work is clear. Stuart Andy Wightman wants a very short intervention on that. Yes, just a brief supplementary to that. Would it be your view as well that if, as the legislation currently stands, an application was rejected because it's not a hedge, it should have to pay the full fee? Because at the moment an application made and rejected in those circumstances is a very modest piece of administration and yet they're paying the full fee. I think if you were applying the same principle as a planning application which was subsequently refused then you would do. I mean inevitably in assessing that there is work involved and the authorities really in terms of where the legislation is coming from and the fee structure that's applied to it are I would say entitled to place a reasonable fee on the cost of that work. The guidance talks about dealing with it in a timely manner and that has caused some difficulty because many of the witnesses felt that that was a bit too subjective and it did give the opportunity for some of the landowners to maybe alter between the application and the action taking place. So I'd like your views on what you think about this timely manner that's put in the act that has caused this situation to arise. Mr Wight, do we want to respond first? I would like to think, certainly I can't think of any issues that we've had in Aberdeen with sort of being timely and going through the process. What I would say is that the overall process is a particularly long process. You'll probably be familiar with part of the act is that it is very much a open process in as much as whenever we receive information we are required to copy that redacted if there are certain things that require to be redacted and then pass that information on. Now within that there are stipulated time frames that we have to give people as well. So in reality I would say that that timely manner is probably approaching easily three months. Now I could well imagine that that's not deemed as very acceptable but even with best efforts I think you'd be struggling to get it much below that. Mr Hamilton, do you have a view? I mean essentially the undertaking of the works, effectively it creates an enforcement process and that can be very difficult to prescribe a precise period to deliver that. I mean I'm particularly with the alteration to hedges and vegetation. There are also wildlife considerations that need to be built into that and there is a kind of a potentially a closed period during the breeding season where it may not be acceptable to cut or alter the hedge if there's nesting birds for example. So part of that has to get built into that process and there's also issues about depending on the scale of the works involved how long that might take to factor in as well. So it is a very difficult area to be precise and I think to some degree well none of us that implement the legislation would prolong it unnecessarily. I think there needs to be a degree of flexibility built into that to cover the vagaries and slightly unknown issues that can arise. Can you Mr Kettles? Yeah, I would say in Perthincan Ross of those applications that we have received determined that have not been subject to an appeal we will have made a decision as in itching a notice within probably eight weeks of receipt of the application. But obviously, you know, as has already been mentioned, the notice in terms of compliance period will have to take account of wildlife. So I've just issued one in the last 10 days and the compliance period is September to basically take it right out the nesting season. So the other thing is that we go on the premise like we do with an enforcement notice that if it's subject to an appeal then a reporter always looks for the local authority to act reasonably. So that's a kind of test that I would always sit down and say well is it reasonable for me to ask this particular individual to cut the hedge? It could be, you know, some of them we've had are 75 metres long and you know, within three weeks, well I would say it's unreasonable, you know, so you know, so we have to do that test anyway. But in terms of process, yeah, we tend to, I was looking online, you know, looking at our cases and I would have said we seem to average around the same timeframe as a planning application six to eight weeks in terms of actually issuing a decision. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Stewart, do you wish to come back with anything? Thank you. Any other colleagues who are supposed to? Do any of you go with? Thank you, convener. Just to ask the panel specifically which department is it within your authority which carries out site visits to assess whether or not a hedge is a hedge or not. Indeed, if that makes sense because when we were taking evidence from a previous session there was a lack of continuity across the country in terms of who does that, is it somebody from the planning department, is it someone with a history of dealing with hedges? So just to kind of get an overview of who it is who makes that final decision, if you could all just start with Mr Kettles who seems to do both. Yeah, well I'm in the planning service, background is horticulture and arboreculture, so I was a kind of, I suppose the person that was identified is appropriate. Mr Hamilton. The high hedges applications are dealt with by planning officers in Fife Council. We also have an in-house arboreculturalist that we can call on for advice as well. Thank you. Mr Wight. I work within the planning team, I'm the sole officer within Aberdeen dealing with high hedges. Okay, do any of you go with? Can I just go back to Mr Hamilton. Fife Council use planning officers, as you said, and then what was it that they use? We have an arborecultural specialist, so she deals with tree preservation orders and is qualified and previously worked in horticulture as well. So we have her assistance for not so much defining whether it's a hedge or not, that's very much part of the assessment through the planning process and applying the legislation. But more so in terms of what the mitigation strategy might be, timescales, types of trees, what the different impacts of those would be. In terms of carrying out site visits, would she be called out as a matter of course or only in unusual circumstances? Not as a matter of course, that would be for the planning officer that's dealing with the case would do that. But as I say, she's on hand and it's a flexible approach. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Does your colleague wish to come in, Mr Simpson? Do any of you have any examples of people who've had a high-edge notice issued simply refusing to go along with it? Mr Wright, are you aware? No, we have been thankfully successful so far. No, we have had, I think, an appeal where the party who had complained felt that the mitigation wasn't significant enough and they appealed and that was required to do additional work. The pattern by and large so far seems to be once the parties are involved in the process, more often than not, some mitigation occurs either before the case is resolved or at the outcome, something is done, which actually addresses the issue in a number of cases. We have had compliance with every notice that we have issued. There was one particular one where the hedge owner didn't comply on the date that we required him to and I was taking steps to take direct action and when I contacted a particular contractor he said he was scheduled to go and cut it. He had made contact with a contractor and the work was carried out within two weeks after the date, so we have had full compliance. Mr Simpson? I just want to go back to previous questioning. It seems to be clear to me that the act is unclear, shall we say. That is quite obvious from what you have all said and what previous witnesses have said and we need some clarity around the definition of a hedge. Do you think that, maybe this is just a personal opinion that I am asking for, should it be extended so that it definitely covers trees and we don't get bogged down with this word edge? Mr Cattles? I live in big tree country in Perthicon Ross and I think that Perthicon Ross is a tourist destination for one of the things that tree covers in Perthicon Ross. I am not saying that if we opened it up to trees that would devastate Perthicon Ross of trees, but I think that it is opening a door to where we are looking to preserve trees, protect trees. I think that if we broadened the act to include trees per se, then it would give rise to a significant loss of urban trees. Mr Hamilton? I think that my answer would have to be no. As I said before, I think that it would open up a significant area of unforeseen consequences in terms of the impact that it would have on the tree covering Scotland. Looks like you are getting a resounding no. I would not like to see the legislation extended. I think it would have a massive impact at a time where local authorities are beginning to recognise the benefit particularly of urban trees and the benefits that they bring within the city. We are struggling enough with tree cover without giving a piece of legislation that means that people can insist that owners of trees have to cut them down. I am going to come back to the panel before I conclude and ask each of you perhaps to say what you would see specifically as being something that could improve the act to help you carry out your job and to help people get satisfaction. Before I do Andy Wightman's indicating. As you are aware, the committee is more likely to hear from people who are dissatisfied with the legislation and those who are satisfied with it. Mr Hamilton, you mentioned at the beginning that the legislation was very much designed as a sort of last resort where reasonable endeavours have not succeeded. In general terms, do you think that the legislation is working well? It would seem to be. All I can go on is the general number of applications that we have received probably has not been as significant perhaps as we would have expected. Whether that is to do with the breadth of what it covers, I do not know. All I can say is that those cases that have been resolved, inevitably the people that have benefited from that will at least feel that legislation has achieved its purpose. We have discussed a number of the difficulties with this type of legislation, which is different to planning permission for a fixed structure like a wall or a building. It is the nature of the fact that you are dealing with something that is alive, grows and to degree is perhaps semi-permanent. It might be deciduous trees and the impact is maybe less when there is no tree cup in leaf. There are a number of difficulties that are embedded into applying this. On the whole, broadly, within the scope of what the legislation covers at the moment, it achieves what it needs to achieve. Mr Wright, at the beginning you mentioned that you thought that the threat of the legislation might have been helpful. Is that something that you would expand on given the question from Mr Wightman? Yes, we have had, especially in the first six months of the legislation coming out and less so, but continuously, we regularly get emails, telephone calls for people looking for information about what can be done and a bit more further information on the high-hedge legislation. You will be aware that part of the legislation requires people to try and resolve it. Often there has already been verbal conversations. We encourage that they put a letter out to their neighbour and specifically highlight the legislation and where they can find it. It is very rare that we hear back from those people what has been rather nice over the years is that we have been contacted by a good half-dozen or so people to say that we do not need to come back to you because just the threat, if we want to use that word, of the legislation has been useful. It was just a further observation on that, and it is something for the committee to ponder. If the purpose of the legislation is to set out a premise that the neighbours try to resolve it themselves, I suppose that one of the issues in those circumstances is that we would not necessarily know whether the legislation has been acceptable because it will have been dealt with by the neighbours. I am aware that we have had people contact us in advance of putting an application in and we are explaining to them the situation. I think that they have gone and contacted the hedge owner and their neighbour and made them aware of the act and the matter has been resolved. I am aware of that. I also wish to just mention that even the sites where we have not issued a high-hedge notice but what I tend to do is put a very short paragraph in a report mentioning perhaps some work or some things that have been noticeable. For example, perhaps dead branches or dead trees within a given area, perhaps slightly straying out with the hedge issue in a sense but nevertheless pointing out that there is scope for doing work. That has then gone on to being undertaken by the owner on two occasions. We had one where they actually clear fell the woodland, not that I asked for that, but without a notice being issued that was cleared and I had another situation where the individual went in and thinned out trees, reduced their crowns, et cetera, et cetera. That was not subject to a notice being issued but comment had been made in relation to the management of their trees and it was responded to positively. That is very much a final point from Mr Gibson. Mr Wright at the start said that he thought that the legislation was, I quote, incredibly beneficial and created a lot of hope. As Mr Hamilton said, it heightened expectations. One of the things that based the legislation was that people would resolve those issues privately. The anecdotal information that we received from the English legislation was that more than 90 per cent were resolved because of the existence of the act. It was kind of hanging over them like a sorda dana clees and people thought, well, we better just sort this out. Obviously, unfortunately, you end up with the intractable cases that come to you. One other point on that is that the only local authority in Scotland that reduces fees according to someone's income is South Ayrshire. I was just wondering if the variance in fees from £172 to £500 put people off applying for high-hedge notice because it is a lot of money to cough up if you are not necessarily going to be successful at the end of the day. Earlier on, I was talking about whether there should be full-cost recovery if an applicant is successful. I am just wondering if you have any evidence anecdotally or otherwise that the cost of the application itself is stopping people from applying. We are aware, obviously, that the councils should not be at a pocket and that is why they have these fees, but it is just whether or not that is having an impact. I could ask you all to specifically answer that question but also to make any final remarks that you would wish to make, anything that you think specifically should be done to make the legislation better to make your job easier in implementing it because we are now coming to the end of this session and I will start the other way round with Mr Kettles. I do think that the guidance could be perhaps made clearer in Safara's understanding of what the definition of a hedge is. I do think that that is one change that could be brought in amending the guidance. I do not know whether or not even some pictorial guidance might have been helpful for members of the public. We have our own guidance sheet that we issue that is on our website, so I think that certainly informing the members of the public what is likely to be a hedge and what is not might be helpful even in pictorial form. In Safara's high-hedge application fees, we have set ours at £270 in Perthach and Ross and we have received 21 to date. I think that £270 is actually quite a reasonable fee by comparison with others. I have only had one individual who was a senior citizen who did say, I cannot afford £270. That is out of all the inquiries that I have received, that was one response. I do think that it might be useful if we had a fee set, just like the planning fees are set, why not set a high-hedge notice application fee across Scotland. I suppose that, firstly, in terms of looking at what might improve the legislation, I suppose that my observation going back to the start of the session about the subjectivity and how that might be dealt with might be more effectively to give a bit more confidence in the legislation from those parties that are told that the local authority is not accepting it as a hedge, is whether there is a need for that. There is some mechanism of an appeal process perhaps within that. Again, it does add to the kind of the longevity of the process, but again if we get into a situation as colleagues here have explained of repeated correspondence about trying to justify that, that might be a way to expedite that part of the process and as well build up some sort of case law. Also, I hope—and I have no doubt the committee in its deliberations will look at some of the decisions that the reporters have issued in their consideration of high-hedge cases where they have determined those and hopefully that will bring together the conclusions there as well. In terms of the issue of the fees, I actually sit as well on heads of planning Scotland in the development management sub-committee, and when that was discussed there around the table of all—well, there were 32 local government planning authorities anyway, as well as the national parks. The number of cases we had in Fife at 23 was, I think, the largest number that had been received. Our fees, £385 at the moment, a number of other authorities were higher, a number were lower, but there didn't seem to be any pattern related to the number of cases submitted relative to what fees were set. Thanks, and Mr Rout. Looking at fees first, when the legislation first came in, we were required to go to our members to seek delegated powers to make decisions on applications that we received. As part of that, we were requested to monitor for a period of 12 months and then go back to committee. The monitoring was in relation to whether the fee was putting off potential applicants. In that 12-month period, we had only two people who inquired about the high-hedge legislation who announced that they could and wouldn't be able to afford that fee. In that situation, what we'd done, we encouraged them that clearly the first steps that have to be undertaken by somebody who is looking to apply doesn't really cost much in as much as putting a letter, discussing it with the neighbours, even going through mediation. We're quite lucky in Aberdeen. We have free mediation service. What we don't know, and this is part of the gathering of evidence in this, is whether they got to a certain stage and resolved the issue, or got to a certain stage and didn't come back to us to say, we've tried every avenue and we're having to stop because we can't afford it. But, as I say, if the most we had to in a 12-month period, moving to what I would like to see to make life easier and help their citizens with the High Hedges Act, I think whilst when you actually look at the legislation, if you are used to looking at legislation, it is quite clear that a hedge, or you have to have a hedge before you can class it as a high hedge. This is very, very commonly overlooked by those who maybe aren't used to looking at legislation. And I think whilst legislation isn't necessarily meant to be the easiest thing in the world, this is aimed at householders in general. I think a very clear statement at the start of the legislation stating that, if that is the decision of the committee, that you have to have what is considered to be a hedge before you can apply the tests of a high hedge. From a guidance perspective, I would encourage a narrative or a suite of tests that can be applied across Scotland fairly, so we have a real standpoint and definition of what a hedge is. Thank you very much, which I think is back to where we started. Thank you all for coming along to the committee this morning on behalf of the committee. That then moves us into private session and our recess committee for a few moments.