 Felly, wrth gwrs, mae'n ddigital fformat o tabletig, lle mae'n gael ei gael eu cymdeithas vieloedd, ale, wrth gwrs, mae'n edrych ar ddym ni'n plesiau nadr fel gweithio cyfaint ar gyffredinol, wrth gwrs, mae'n gael ei gael eich gael eich gael eich gael, ond mae'n gael eich gael eich gael ddydd gwyddu sy'n cael eu cychweithio ein bitig yn ddiogelio. Os ydych chi'n gael eich gael, mae'n rYYI yn ni'n nodi ei wneud i fyndeidiau sydd I will move straight on to agenda item 1, which will be declaration of interests. Can I invite Ruth Maguire, who is joining our committee, to declare any relevant interests? I have no relevant, registral interests to declare. Thank you very much, Ruth, and welcome to the committee. Although it was only a brief stint, I can put on record our thanks to Mary Evans, who engaged fully in the work of the committee in the short time she was here, so thanks to Mary for that. On to agenda item 2, which is the decision on taking business in private, so we have to decide whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Can I ask members if they are agreeable to that suggestion? Thank you very much. On to agenda item 3, which is the independent review of the Scottish planning system. We will be taking evidence on the independent review of the Scottish planning system from members of the independent panel and will be followed by the Minister for Local Government and Housing. I thank John Hamilton and Petra Beiberback for coming along this morning. Good morning. You are very welcome, and we are very grateful for coming along. It has been indicated to Petra that you might make an opening statement on behalf of you both. If that has been intimated to you in advance, we would very much welcome that, and we will move to some questions. Great. Do I have to press anything? Oh, not at all. It's just automatically, okay. Thank you very much. My name is Petra Beiberback of PASS, formerly known as Planning 8, and my colleague is John Hamilton of Winchborough Development Ltd. As you know, we are members of the independent panel appointed by the former Cabinet Secretary, Alex Neil, in September 2015 to undertake a review of the Scottish planning system. The panel of CERI was chaired by Crawford Beverage, who is chair of the Scottish Government's Council of Economic Advisers. Unfortunately, Crawford is unable to attend the committee meeting today. We are very grateful to have this opportunity to address the committee today, following submission of the panel report in May this year. Just to include it, we are bringing the following skills and experience. For myself, as Chief Executive of PASS, I lead a small team supporting over 420 volunteers who provide independent advice, information and education programmes on how to get involved in the planning system, their primary planning professionals. I also chair the Planning and Access Committee of Loch Lomond National Park Authority, and I am on the board of CERI waste and the Link Group and National Housing Association. John is the Chief Executive of Winchborough Development Ltd, which is the company delivering the largest housing growth area currently under construction in central Scotland. He is the immediate past chair of the Scottish Property Federation and is a member of the SPF police board. He has also served as a non-executive board member of City of Edinburgh Council's 21st century homes for the first six years of the programme. The terms of reference set out by the then Cabinet Secretary called for ideas to improve planning in six key areas. Development planning, housing delivering, planning for infrastructure, streamlining development management, leadership resources and skills and community engagement. During the course of the review, we received in excess of 400 written submissions and heard oral evidence from more than 100 people. Given the relatively short period that was allowed for the production of our report, we believe that the scale of the response from the planning profession, the development and house building industries and from the public reflects the need for wide-ranging reform of planning in Scotland. Our report contains a total of 48 recommendations in the six areas identified in the Cabinet Secretary's brief and was submitted immediately prior to the Scottish Government election on 5 May. This is an important point. The recommendation we regard as interlinked, so for example creating early engagement in the development plan making process requires community councils to be involved at a much earlier stage. We are delighted the Minister now in post with responsibility for planning Mr Kevin Stewart has already delivered an official response by the Scottish Government to our report and is setting up a number of working groups to take forward reform and address recommendations where further evidence is required. We are encouraged that the Minister is continuing the fast pace in the process for reform with a target set for production of a white paper round the turn of the year and with the aim of producing a new planning bill in 2017. This is a demanding timescale on a range of complex and independent process, but we believe it's correct to maintain the impetus towards reform which we believe has been gained by the recent publication of the report. We are aware that ongoing constraints on public sector finance at those national and local authority levels, additional budgetary pressures created following the recent European referendum are likely to lead to severe challenges and difficulties and difficult decision on where the focus for the reform should be. We believe however that in virtually any economic circumstance in the foreseeable future there is a proven need for the report's recommendation to be taken into account in future work which is now being undertaken in enforced coming legislation. We trust that the committee will agree that the reform on the basis of the based on these recommendations is essential for the achievement of key economic sustainable and social development targets, including improvements which lead to more inclusive society, economic growth, housing delivery and an associate community and land reform legislation. Thank you for your patience. Thank you very much. Can I remove to questions and Kenneth Gibson to open up the first question? Thank you very much convener and good morning to our panel members. I'm looking at their key recommendations made in the report and the first one in the report includes a requirement to set out regional house building targets. I'm just wondering what you mean by regional whether it's local authority or some wider context. Just to put that in context, on 29 June when the minister was giving evidence and asked him specifically about the 10,000 houses a year that the Scottish Government is looking to build, whether that would be proportionate and he said that it would be demand-led. I'm just wondering how a demand-led system would work along with regional house building targets and how that might dovetail. One of the points or issues that we noted in the course of the review is that housing targets are more or less seen as a sort of snapshot in time and it's quite difficult for planning authorities at local development plan level and in the strategic development plans to be fully aligned all of the time on the basis that these snapshots are made over periods of years. Alignment with specific housing policy as distinct from planning policy can be quite difficult to achieve. What we're looking at is a recommendation on a regime that would, at the top level, look at the requirements for housing on the national scale. At the moment, we have strategic development plans and planning authorities and it seems to us to be quite cumbersome on how those targets are filtered down to local levels. We do see the need to maintain regional targets because we have a specific large or relatively large urban areas in central Scotland and in the north-east. We see it as being essential that there's an effective assessment of housing demand in those areas. There must be regional assessments and I think that we would anticipate a lot of the work around that being done potentially with the type of city deal structures and funding structures that are coming beginning to emerge now and the funding that would come from that. We're conscious also of the need for communities to be represented. Essentially, there's a recommendation in the report that the strategic development planning authorities may be reviewed and their role would have to change so that there's closer alignment from national planning policy and the national planning framework with a shorter management chain, if you like, through the regional levels but also with the ability of communities to be represented at the regional levels. Do you mean by regional level? For example, Ruth and I are MSPs in North Ayrshire, which is one of three Ayrshire local authorities. By region, do you mean Ayrshire? Do you mean North Ayrshire? Do you mean the west of Scotland? How is west of Scotland defined in the old Strathclyde region and the west of Scotland electoral region? I'm trying to pin down what you mean by the word regional. I think that we can see that one of the issues about the definition of a region is something that we found quite difficult to pinpoint. It's possibly something that does require some further work, but by the term region we were anticipating not in any sort of political structural sense but something that would be on the basis of the old regional authorities. However, those are now being replaced by large-city authorities that may have a difference between the large-city authorities and smaller local authorities. I think that it's something that we probably can see that we aren't specific enough at this stage in the report on how we're defining a region. I just want to add to that, because we took it from what was the role of strategic planning authorities and what can we do here to create a greater efficiency rather than just having yet another layer of plan making. One of the things, and it's probably the hallmark of this particular approach, is to leave the detail to many other stakeholders. We made recommendations by looking at the evidence in front of us. Some of the details will have to be worked through and other larger stakeholder involvement is now looking at precisely those kinds of questions. I think that that's important to bear in mind. We made recommendations. Most of them will be taken on board, but exactly how it works, we've discussed the principle of what's not working currently in the Scottish planning system. Just on that basis, in 4.8, if you report, you say that planning is not well placed to ensure that it provides the right types of housing to meet the diverse needs of communities. In 4.12, if you report, you say that it's difficult to find a definitive reason for the continuing low levels of housing delivery and to pinpoint planning's influence in this. Certainly, from my perspective, we have numerous housing development plans being put forward. One of the issues, of course, is that there's always significant local resistance. People who are themselves well-housed don't seem to be too keen on other people necessarily being well-housed in their area. They're all keen on new housing, as long as it's somewhere else, and it's about how you try to deal with those issues. One of the things that you've talked about in your report is community engagement, but at the same time you're talking about barriers to more housing development, and those two things can often be very contradictory. I'm just wondering how you feel we can move to try and square that circle. We're giving people a feel as if they've got an input, but at the same time ensuring that nimbyism doesn't defeat a host of necessary housing developments. I think that this gets really to the enough of the problem in that we have seen almost planning being used like addressing a democratic deficit. I local communities feel that that's the only chance that we ever have somebody who will listen to us, and I think to some extent what we want to see is a is a mature debate about the kind of needs that society requires, so housing is part of that, and we have a real housing shortage, especially around affordability, affordable homes. We also need to have that debate at a much wider national level, and perhaps, and I think it aligns with what we one of the recommendation is to have a discussion in Parliament around MPF and housing requirements. That then can fill this through once the acceptability by the elected members is there, then that debate can be taken into the local communities and sites can be identified. I think we should also perhaps remind ourselves that we need very different housing tenures for the future. Perhaps some of the models that we see emerging in continental Europe and in other parts is more housing cooperative, more self-built, more, you know, in-town delivery above the shop, we only have one area which the simplified planning zone actually deals with that, so I do think we need to look at it much more creatively rather than the kind of large scale that sometimes that's what people envisage and that's what people then fight against, but if we are more involving those very actors such as community councils in the earliest opportunity become involved in development plan making rather than development management, that kind of negative attitude can actually be turned around and we've seen it happening. Okay, just for the word and for the point convener, thank you for your indulgence and it's just on a slightly different issue, it's about reporters. You've said in 3.10 that there's some fundamental questions about the role of reporters and who they represent have been raised with us. Now from my perspective, I mean, I think it's ridiculous that when a reporter finishes his or her work in January, it's July before a minister gets a report on their table, six months to write a report, but I wonder if you can comment on that and the other thing I would ask on that is that you talk about planning fees to increase, to ensure full cost of recovery for planning authorities, would that include the cost of public local inquiries? Yes, we aren't recommending that the fees would be increased to take account of public inquiries. We are looking at means of making planning more effective and ensuring more effective consultation with communities. At the moment, the cost of planning in local authorities is quite drastically underfunded and it's a fairly consistent picture across all the local authorities where they will now recover quite a small proportion through fees of the planning system. We are recommending that fees are more in terms of looking at the management of the planning system, increasing fees but possibly having more options on how the type of planning applications that can be made at the moment are applications that consist of more than 50 houses. It's a capped figure that's allowed for those planning fees. When we compare that to south of the border, there are other types of applications that can be made that potentially involve outcome agreements or some form of contract, if you like, between planning authorities and applicants in what each of those parties would have to provide in order for a full planning and effective decision to be made. We do see that there's a need for slightly more choice in the type of planning fees or planning applications that would be made and we see that as a means where local authorities could recover more of the cost to the local authority. I'm not going to ask anyone if I'm just wondering about the reporter issue. I have a question about reporters and you're absolutely right. We do have heard lots and lots of evidence that elected members but also community felt aggrieved by the lack of transparency and also the lens it took sometimes for reporters to report back. We want to repurpose the role of the reporter as a sort of playing a part at the gate check, i.e. at the start of a plan making and where the reporter is almost like in the role of the mediator but also has to feed back very quickly to the community what is actually what he or she perceives. I think that there is a repurposing of the reporter's role required very urgently. Before we move on, Graham Simpson, is it a supplementary in something that's been raised already before we move on to the next? Not exactly. It kind of follows on from the things that I've said. We've got other bits coming in so if you bear with me, I'll take you in a second. I do have a follow-on from it and then I'll take Elaine in to ask about the whole right of appeal. My follow-on was in relation to community engagement, which Mr Gibson was talking about as well. I think that Petrie would have mentioned about planning opportunities being seen as I know is because of a deficiency in local democracy, people oppose something because it's an empowerment aspect of that planning process. Another empowerment aspect of the planning process is quite often the meeting of section 75 agreements. I know in my local area whenever there's developments proposed, the first thing communities understandably think, oh, this is great, there's new social or affordable housing coming to our area or it's private housing, but we think, how can this enhance our wider area? In section 75 agreements are one of the ways that that can be done. I know there's been a diminution of the use of section 75 agreements over the years, so that's caused for concern, but likewise, I suppose, the idea of the infrastructure levy, there could be sounds fantastic in theory, but I suppose my concern might be that it hoovers up developer contributions and takes potential community benefits away from a community that is impacted by a development. Is there a tension there between, rather than getting rid of section 75 agreements, it would be better to see a more strategic use of them for community benefit perhaps and how to square the circle with the infrastructure levy? More information on that would be quite welcome. I'd like to answer the point in section 75. The section 75 system has its drawbacks. I agree that there is a tension here because it's primarily intended to mitigate the impact of development, but as time has moved on, and we had the 2006 act, there's been so far no introduction on a planning levy as such, so we still have essentially the same section 75 process. Following the recession in 2008, section 75 contributions that may have been coming through the pipeline largely dried up, so the private sector, to quite a large extent, stopped making those contributions. That's partly because they may argue that it wasn't a system that was designed for funding of secondary schools, full secondary schools or major transport intersections. More of the heavy weight and the funding of that, I believe, has to be looked at jointly between the private sector and the public sector, and section 75 contributions aren't really effective in doing that in every case. Can I just be clear whether we're talking about recommending ending section 75 agreements or the improved use of them alongside an infrastructure levy? We're not recommending that we would end section 75 contributions. I think there will still be a place for them. I think there has to be a recognition that there's a limitation on the use of section 75s to major public infrastructure. Can I ask one final question on that? I suppose my very localised example in members are terrible at doing this. Alan Dill is convener, so 600 new homes coming to Hamilton hill in my area are desperately the regeneration. There are some long-standing residents that have stuck it out and they have their homes. They are keen to be discussing with the planning authority and the housing association what that new community looks like. They think that it would be great to have a small tenants' hall in that area, so rather than 600 houses, it would be 600 houses plus one small hall. Can that somehow be part of that co-production model and could section 75 be used for that? I don't ask you to comment on that, but that's just to illustrate the point that section 75 agreements might be better a discussion between the developer and the local community more than a developer and the planning authority. Perhaps the developer and the planning authority's discussion should be about the infrastructure levy rather than the community benefits, because the community knows the community benefits better than the planning authority in my experience. I would like to answer that, because I think that's all about the scale of those contributions. Again, when section 75 effectively can, it's often a negotiation done privately between the planning authority and the developer. I think that the scale of each of those issues, which might be subject to section 75, if they are at an appropriate scale where communities would be able to become party to those negotiations, I think that that would be quite correct, but that might be at quite low scale. The problem that we have at the moment is that when it comes to the funding of major infrastructure, the community is removed from that and they are not party to that. The section 75 negotiations are not in that sense completely transparent either. I cannot just add a point and that is that section 75 is just an instrument. If you really want to move community engagement proper into what I mentioned before participatory planning, then the communities are involved at the stage where these houses are being allocated and being discussed. Their intelligence is being sought in terms of where, when and how. Rather than just waiting at this final point when it's already done and then there's negotiations starting between the developer as to what additional benefits can be had for local authority. I really think we need to move to a much more mature, much earlier dialogue and not wait until 600 and then community says, okay, this is how what we would like to see. That's the whole thrust of this reform is really trying to make it much, much more front-loaded because I think if there was a failure again 2006, it's partly because the community planning act in 2006 did promise some better community engagement but we had 2008 recession and very little I think in terms of the spirit was actually realised so we still have many many communities out there who not readily engage, who don't even know that they're such a thing as the planning system and only when it comes to the latest point are they starting to say, I want to be in there. That's really helpful. Thank you very much Elaine Smith. Thanks very much, convener, and thank you both for coming along this morning and for your report. Before I move on to questions on the theme of Equate of Appeal though, I noticed when you're introducing yourselves I had a quick question whilst I know that the Government appointed the three of you. Could I just ask, do any of you have a planning qualification or a community qualification or is it a business background that's something that occurred to me when you're introducing yourselves? My background is, well it's a business background and there's a surveyor developer in the house building industry but also in regeneration. I started my career in the seventies in regeneration in Glasgow which was primarily about tenement refurbishment and the gear project in the east end of Glasgow but my background is in development. Sorry I'm not interviewing you but I've just had a card to me when you're introducing yourselves it might be. My background is in sustainable development and in European law so and I have worked with communities for the last 20 years in both. I was a point about COSLA, sustainable working there and also at Herodewod University looking at greener infrastructure and so on so that's my background. Thank you very much. In the introduction on your report under 1.8 you talk about restoring community trust in the system. We've talked a bit about that with the previous lines of questioning and the committee has a petition that we've inherited about equal rights of appeal and we did indicate to the petitioners we might raise some of these issues this morning so I think we're moving on to that convener if I'm right. So my question specifically would be that a law of the 400 respondents to your consultation not everybody expressed a view about appeal rights in the planning system but 70% of those who did express a view on equal rights of appeal favoured the possibility and it is something that's been around in this parliament practically since I can remember since 99 as an issue. So I think that given that the majority who did respond on that issue albeit there's no specific question on that issue they did respond in favour of that I wonder whether you or could maybe you could tell us why you didn't think it was appropriate to refer the matter for further government consideration basically you concluded that that you weren't persuaded that a third party right of appeal should be introduced so why did you not consider that the government should perhaps look at it more and I suppose secondly what evidence did you take to inform that recommendation? Firstly you know I think it was a sort of overwhelming you know requirement of our report that you know we would produce a report that could deliver a more effective planning system we agree that in fact I think you know we deal in you know quite a amount of depth here that you know there are deficiencies in our planning system and you know we were addressing this from the need to make planning the planning system in Scotland more effective and as part of that requirement to make improvements for local communities and how they would become part of the or how they could contribute to the planning system you know one of the things that I wasn't aware of until we did this report is that there are over 2,000 registered community councils in Scotland already and now obviously you know that number of organisations has a pretty you know it's paltry the amount of funding that those organisations have but the fact is that they do exist and I think we avoid you know use of the word nimby in our report but it's already been mentioned in here and you know I don't think there's any great argument that you know that sort of attitude from a lot of parts of the community who are well housed may be a barrier towards you know delivering improved housing for other people so we did approach this from the point of view that we do see the need for communities to be far better represented as a step change from where we are just now we think those communities must have a better and a clearer role to play in the planning system we were looking at a process where and again you know because there's a large number of them we would see it has been a great difficulty that they they would each have the right to be represented in a local development plan but a number of communities that we met put forward their own community plans which some of which were well received in their local authority areas and in some others weren't so I think we would see a process where community councils may at least have the ability and the option to opt in as it were into the formulation of a development plan and have their voice heard at that stage. Petra, do you want to add just to add to that I think if you if you know that the the kind of journey that we're on is to have more collaboration is to have more involvement is to have a kind of national debate about what society needs what its requirements are how it looks after its excluded groups because there are plenty of groups that are outside the planning process we had evidence presented from across the UK we looked at we had academics who have worked both in in in the UK as well as in Ireland we listened to their views and overwhelmingly the evidence was that if we looked at the system of introducing third party right of appeal a Scotland would be the first one to do that which would in in this kind of current climate would be quite challenging secondly the definition of who is the third party in all of that is very challenging it could be used as fixatious by another appellant and if we having now the third the third point also being is that the evidence from from academics in Ireland that it is actually becoming a more centralized rather than local process because the decision is being taken out for all of those reasons and we have listened to plenty of evidence we also tested with some of the community councils who we wanted to hear because many of them were cited as being the ones that are wanting to see third party right of appeal when we had a discussion with them about approaching a change of role for them being early engaged rather than at a very end each each of one of them felt that early engagement and their strategy role being in that early process of development plan making and enhanced resourcing is far better than waiting and you know appeal it has a sort of has a notion of them and us and that's not I think what what we wanted to see in this kind of reform we wanted to have something that is far more inclusive that can be more proactive and I think yeah I feel also when it was first muted that was in 2005 during the we're now in 2016 we now have the community empowerment act we now have land reform we now have the post christie a lot more communities wanting to take on certain things there is no such thing as one community and one community voice Elaine, do you want to develop that further? Yes, please. I don't know what to come in on this. Thank you, I don't know where to start developing it further but perhaps I can start by saying actually it goes much further back in this parliament with private members bills being discussed and talked about so it's been a running theme through the parliament now I'm not sitting here to argue about whether or not these rights of appeal are right or not I suppose what I haven't heard an answer to is given that you know telling me the people you took evidence from on the issue why was it not a question in the first place for more people perhaps to respond to and give you more evidence on so it wasn't there as a call in the first place some people chose because it's a big issue for them to put it in their evidence to you even it wasn't a specific question and I suppose secondly you know it's not just about housing with respect and I think that nimbyism perhaps is also just a wee bit overplayed if you look at the Irish situation then it's perhaps a bit over exaggerated but secondly and sorry thirdly it's not just about housing so you have something for example like plans for a private developer to build an incinerator council refuses it community don't want it but the person that does have a right of appeal in that case as the developer and if the developer then appeals then the community and the council can and have been overturned so actually what Petra said about appeals sometimes not being the right way forward well if that's the case that the community shouldn't be taking appeals because it's maybe not the right way forward what by the fact that developers can then take appeals and then community wishes and local wishes of councils can be overturned so these are these are themes and I suppose my final question on it is why why not take specific evidence on this and why not ask the government to explore it further because I don't think we do have all the answers on it you mentioned early on a figure of 78 percent of respondent heads wanted to see third party right of appeal that was from the hundred response sorry convener I said out of your 400 respondents not all of them responded on this issue which is unsurprising since you didn't ask it as a specific question but for those who did respond on the issue and raised it 70 70 not 78 70 percent of them were interested in seeing third and equal rights of appeal I think this is a fundamental question here you mentioned incinerator and you're saying that incinerators you know communities don't want them but at the same time we're having a huge target in terms of our our how we deal with our waste we have a huge target in terms of green energy so these are national debates do we leave that at a local level to decide I'm going to I'm taking you in next but I think the specific question Elaine was asking about why didn't you ask the question in the first place I think was a reasonable question I don't have the original brief here but you know certainly there were you know there were there were questions phrased in the in terms of even the debate about you know whether the debate was about third party right of appeal or whether it was about equal right of appeal that that came up you know this was not you know just brushed aside and you know I would have to go back and look exactly at what the the framework of those questions were but but it was certainly in there the minister I think we got the brief from from the cabinet secretary on the six themes we then had a special session where the third party right of appeal was discussed provide more information perhaps and writing to the committee on that that that would be really helpful know something my colleagues want to go on that Graham Simpson yeah and I should declare an interest that I'm still a councillor in south Lanarkshire so just to develop the theme on third party rights for appeal do you not do you not see the problem here is that what what what you're suggesting is you allow a system that we we currently have where developers like yourself mr Hamilton can appeal if your development was was rejected you could appeal but the communities that you say want more involved could not appeal do you not see the the issue there I mean what we are you know looking to to achieve here is you know a more focused and more direct planning system where developers would be constrained and would be guided by an effective development plan and you know on the basis of those those those applications you know I would have no sympathy for a developer who makes an application you know that runs completely contrary to a local development plan and you know if that was appealed and it was refused then that developer you know has to make their own choice about the business plan that they put behind it you know how much investment they put in firstly to a planning process and then secondly you know to the delivery of that that planning application and you know we've talking about and I appreciate this is not all about housing but you know we require a step change in the number of houses that we're building across all tenures in Scotland and those are very very you know significant business investment decisions that would have to be made around that and other you know large scale projects that are being mentioned and you know incinerators that there's a crossover between the needs of the public sector and having those types of projects delivered and what the business community and the investment community will have the confidence to put behind them to see them being achieved. Yeah just to say the third party right of appeal came out of the discussion that there hadn't been sufficient community engagement what we're trying to do here is frontload much much more community engagement at the earliest opportunity at the same time I do think that if we if we're narrowing it just down to a third party or equal party who defines the party we had recently we had Portobello high school which drove a community which drove a real big wedge in the community so who is the third party there I think it's it's very I'd rather see a much more proactive and engaged and inclusive system that doesn't need to have a third party right of appeal because we've got it right but at the moment we don't have it right. Thank you just a brief follow-up of the Gwytor Andy and after that. Absolutely so if you get it if you get it right then perhaps you don't need any sort of appeals perhaps you don't need Mr Hamilton to appeal there if he's not happy so if it's done right you don't need any appeals right. You know if it's absolutely right but I'm not recommending but if that's a suggestion then you know in principle yes you know if we have a perfect planning system we would not have we would not have right of appeal but we are our recommendation is you know it's heavily geared towards improving the planning system and making sure that planning applications are made to reflect national planning policy and local development plans. In my day job I work with communities up and down Scotland and third party right of appeal is the last thing that comes up what is important is how do we make our voice heard how do we make representation how do we achieve something so an island community like rum who wants to develop who wants to grow is becoming a developer a development trust who takes on assets is becoming a developer that is the proactive side that we're now seeing more and more what community wants to understand is when how and why their recommendations and the transparency in decision making feeding back to them so I think we need just a more mature debate about saying if I could add one thing you know as Peter was saying you know that there is a lot of interlink between you know what are apparently different recommendations in here and you know we do make you know points about leadership through the planning system and making a commitment to planning policy and I think this is part of that as well you know in fact we're making recommendations on you know even at the level of a chief executive approving a development plan and you know that there has to be confidence from both the public sector and the private sector that planning policy is done you know it's set correctly and you know we have a system that delivers against that policy my deputy has asked for supplementary but Andy Whiteman has been very very patient so probably because of time I'm going to have to say Andy for the final questions on you know right of appeal third party appeal monthly yeah I can see what is to Alexander Stewart we're going to come to next for planning enforcement okay of course there's two new areas really but I think just to sort of perhaps comment on the equal right of appeal assume I mean I take the point Petra you're making about if we can get earlier engagement and I think that's the nub of it if and there's still a distrust and taking John's comment at the end there I mean if going forward we can perhaps equalise the rights of appeal if you see what I mean rather than yeah yeah we couldn't discuss that going forward we've looked at it in a slightly yep almost to the telescope I think yeah I've got two substantial points a questions on one sort of minor one first of all you I think you indicated at the beginning Petra you said that it's very very important you see all your 48 recommendations as linked is that correct you yeah the government's indicated an intention to take forward 10 of those 48 in other words there's 38 it's not taking forward at least at the moment are you concerned about what happens to those 38 and are you have you got any issues with the extent to which the 10 that have been identified for early action some of them may be linked to others that are not and what we get might not be what you are bold and I should say commendable vision is I think it would be fair to say it's a timescale can we just get some clarity around that apologies because I thought it was 10 for early action that's right immediate action it's called yes I was just going to come to that absolutely it's immediate actions so there are nine plus one that the so that's for action because one is an inaction and the other nine yes they've taken that on the other 38 I think what's really commendable and this is again in the spirit of this of this report is around collaboration so there are a number of working groups now being set up across the different six themes to look into the detail of how some of that can be delivered and how how some of that can be worked through because the thing about about planning is there are so many different stakeholders so many different interests and therefore it is important that everyone has a has a some sort of input into that so that it becomes a shared experience and it comes forward so I think the working groups are being set up from what we understand and they're meeting already for the first time next week so to take further in more detail the recommendation because we made just recommendation it may well be that others will feel they want some more some some more details they want to work through some of that so that's where I understand and the timescale is quite ambitious okay thank you very much we'll obviously pick up some of that with the minister later my second substantial point is around recommendation 18 on land value uplift in your view how significant an issue is this in relation to the millions of pounds that flow as un-air and increments currently to to landowners who captures these now the mechanism in place we've already heard section 75 to potentially capture some of them at a later stage who should capture them and what would the implications be in moving towards a system more like we had at the beginning in 1947 and as I think still exists in Germany where those are in a sense captured to provide public benefits at the outset to invest in infrastructure good planning on all the rest of it and house builders get ahead and build houses there is unfairness in the system we have just now where you know on the basis of a decision being made by an authority a piece of land can become or could become you know a great deal more valuable than it is just growing crops and we do you know we have opened this up as I say you know to the potential for a land or a planning a planning levy and the reason for that is that even in the development in the house building industry is the recognition that the planning system you know confers value to to land but that doesn't always mean that every piece of land is profitable or is or is effective what the house building industry needs is a you know a process where there's more certainty about what the outcome in that piece of land or the value of that piece of land with planning permission being being being granted because at the moment there's still there's too much uncertainty and it depends on the area and not every single region or every authority is the same but it can be very difficult for business plans to be put together that allow house building to progress where there's uncertainty around the cost of section 75 contributions. I think a few years back probably a great deal of people in the house building industry would you know react against any suggestion of a land tax or a land levy I think there's increasingly a realisation and you know we heard evidence from homes for Scotland and from individual house builders that there is a realisation that this is all part of the process you know costs have to be met a lot of these costs that you know currently might flow to the original land owner may have to be you know charged for the delivery of education or transport the process of his working correctly it will still result in a fair payment to the land owner ultimately people that own land you know we probably I'm not you know wanting into a discussion about cpo but you know where a piece of land is required as part of a local development plan or as part of a part of national policy and then in some cases cpo is used I think that you know instinctively we would try to avoid that so that we have a better and more effective system that still allows for land to be paid for but also allows for infrastructure to be funded as part of the cost of a development. I think I think we've recognised that there is value in exploring this further that was definitely principle accepted and it's not just about housing if you look at infrastructure provisions such as the borders railway for example a kind of yield that you see there the uplift so I think it's something that needs to be looked at much more detail but I think this fits in very well with the land reform and that's the other thing that we found in terms of the 2006 act and what we're seeing now is the much greater buy in by different departments and by different local authority departments and Scottish government departments to make this reform much much more far reaching. Okay thank you just one final little point a third one this is on your recommendation 16 you talk about Scotland's diverse housing needs and it's important to ensure that support for new sectors does not inadvertently provide opportunities to build mainstream homes which do not meet established needs and you then go on to say where special measures are introduced to promote the private rented sector and assurance of the retention of use in perpetuity would therefore in our view be essential could you say a little bit more about what you mean by that and whether what you mean there applies to more than just the example you've used which is the private rented sector yeah the thing it does apply to to more we have we have used the example of the private rented sector there but it's you know an issue I think that you know local authorities can be sensitive about and this particular of the case in the in west loading council where planning might be granted for a tenure which appears initially to to meet affordable housing requirements and shared equity would be an example where if there isn't the ability to fix that type of tenure in perpetuity within a very short period of time you know possibly even months and you know it could then there could be an attraction to the owner of that property to put that property back into the market now in west loading council they have fairly strict guidelines about how affordable housing must be legally that the title must require it to be affordable in perpetuity and it does that that's a sort of older example but it does sort of cross over into the private rented sector where if similar title provisions aren't made then a developer might you know get a consent for private rented sector you know in the part of the market which you know in the short term meets that market and then even on you know fairly big scale you know those rented units could then be sold into the open market no that's exactly what we want to safeguard affordable housing see what else helps so what you're really saying is you're proposing that the planning system in terms of use classes for example you should be able to incorporate a more fine grained understanding of the use to which land property is put the example you cited of affordable housing where this was already being done in west loading for example through title conditions through the legal process by implication you'd rather start seeing through the democratic planning process such that if consent were granted to let's say a retirement home or a student flat or disabled accommodation or social housing that those use classes then would have to be if anyone wanted to change those they would have to apply in future so you do it through the planning system rather than trying to be complicated I think the student accommodation that's a good example because you know it's it's relatively easy for a development or a planning permission to be granted for student accommodation which at some point in the future without you know any further analysis of you know in planning terms might become flats you know it might become market flats or location okay thank you Alexander Stewart thank you convener can I just indicate that I am a serving member of person can I ask council thank you very much this morning for your presentation and for the report can I ask I was surprised that there wasn't a lot in the report with the area under planning enforcement because that whole area where we have you know building control that hasn't taken place or or has permission hasn't been granted and someone's built something on within the process that that is still a major concern across most local authorities and you touched on the financial constraints that many local authorities have and that has a knock-on effect about how many planning enforcement officers or that nature that they may have I'd like to have some views about what you see as the the complex issue that it is and how going forward that it can be managed and challenged I think that that's really really vital because for a lot of communities and especially those that are interested around what's happening seeing their action followed up is so so crucial to build that confidence but what's happening is the reality is that many local authorities I mean most all local authorities planning authorities are really cash strapped it has not kept up with the pace in terms of planning fees and so on and and I think that something then will have to give so we need to move towards a system where we have proper resourcing of the of the planning system where we have proper resourcing in terms of full cost recovery to then actually identify those types of function that will actually also help communities to feel there's trust in the system yes if I phone them up and and I had the recent case where somebody came to our advice service saying in a in a conservation area 10 mature trees have been failed to make room for car parking weeks latest nothing so that that is the little things that actually really exercise people which gives them planning a bad name sorry yeah I think you know perhaps so you we could have made this point more strongly but there are real powers of enforcement already in the planning in the planning act and you know I see these I don't see these daily but you know I regularly I see you know enforcement action being taken against developers and that action currently could mean that you know development quite quickly is stopped or you know fines are applied towards developers as well I think it also goes with a recommend you know the recommendation we're looking for the whole investment in the planning system both in terms of the the public role in planning but also the private role in planning you know greater investment and and that does you know probably mean a requirement for an increase in fees and there isn't enough resource in the planning authorities you know within local authorities for planning officers to act also in in many cases they have to act as management you know case officers and in enforcement and unfortunately some of this does come down I think to you know question of the resource and how how valued the planning system needs to be it has you've come back with the right answer for me anyway that it needs to be managed effectively I agree but I think you have to do that effectively because if you don't put your money where your mouth is then you're not going to be able to manage that process and yes there are opportunities for developers when they do things wrong for the opportunity for them to be then penalised but some of them are quite happy to be penalised because knocking down a tree that may only have a out being stopped and I have recently seen you know a threatened action for a you know quite a major development to be stopped and that means that people who will have contracted with that house builder will not you know be able to conclude entry to that property yeah thank you okay now I hope you're asking the right questions I'm delighted that it's going to give the right answers there yes for whatever members I know mr Gibson want to ask supplementary on that to be honest actually Alexander touchstone I mean it was the issue of effectively the trees thing whereby developer actually happily knocks down some trees takes a small fine and then spits it then gets a dozen houses bill it was to sell for a couple of million and it's about trying to ensure that the punishment fits the kind of crime so to speak and that there are real barriers to people undertaking such action because it's actually happening in my constituency also so that was the only point I was wanting to make there so okay and could you you might want to follow up after that because I know you went to the very specific question in relation to island one it was a thank you convener it was in terms of your recommendation 11 you talk about given the special circumstances that island authority should be given more flexibility where this would better reflect the distinctive local context for planning an island setting and I obviously I agree with that and the island's bill will certainly encompass that but in my constituency I've got an island of 5000 people are in which is very distinctive from the rest of North Ayrshire one in 10 miles off the coast of another island Cymru which is more integral to North Ayrshire but Arran itself for example a lot of the things that you've suggested here an example for example encouraging broader more creative use of schemes of delegation et cetera could be bringing forward and integrated terrestrial marine plans now these all apply to somewhere like Arran as well although so are you of the view that would be that that it should only be the island authorities or do you feel there's room to manoeuvre in order that perhaps distinctive communities that format that Arran islands can also have a bit more flexibility and autonomy in terms of these issues yes again we've put it out there and now I know that one of the working groups have been inviting representative of island communities along to discuss in a bit more detail exactly how it should look because especially around marine planning there are some real real challenges and aligning that much better is the spatial planning I think it requires all islands to have some sort of view not just you know island authorities so yeah I think it was just because your recommendation mentioned island authorities or island communities it's not it's yeah sorry okay thank you that's my helpful clarification could I indulge then and ask another question myself and it I know with one of the recommendations is that development plans in the future may be reviewed every 10 years rather than every five years and my understanding is that planning authorities do produce 10-year plans but they're reviewed in the middle of that of that process now whilst I understand from my council colleagues that can be a massive bureaucracy doing all of that the concern I would have my experience of as an MSP and a local resident engaging with Glasgow's development plan is I get a creative documents given to my office and the area I lived in was here matter for dramatic changes I didn't know the MSP I didn't know the local resident and the local authority clearly had no particular desire to engage with the community about what a local development plan would look like now and we were these nimbiistic individuals mr Gibson I don't know I had some significant issues with it as a resident but I suppose in the more general term I would be worried that errors in local development plans could be locked in for 10 years and that would be a concern I would have so I get that it works for planning authorities to have that 10-year plan and more stability and more structural longer more strategic views but how do we make sure we get things right in the first place and actually co-produce some of those plans with communities rather than a planning authority just doing what plan authorities do I do think that longer term planning can help to focus on delivery I do think that some of the experience that we have currently is the system is the current system what we're proposing is longer term plan certain flexibility but also linking it in terms of changing the role of the community councils if your community councils have been a statutory consultee in your development plan I'm sure more people would have heard about what was being proposed if we're now seeing the onset of and North Ayrshire is a big example there because they're leading it North Ayrshire wide locality plans being created together with community planning having actually shared service delivery understanding where the police the health education wants to go over the next few years that that makes it for much better and integrated system where locality plans will have to be informed by the local people so I do think some of the experience we have is it's born of the current system which is not working as well as it should be there's no doubt about it what we're recommending is how we could be working much much better I suppose my reflection is if a planning authority tries to promote or raise awareness and holds a meeting one man or one woman in their duggle turn up if a local elected representative tries to get publicity for something's happening in planning you get a full town hall so there's real lessons to be learned about what does it really mean to engage and when you do advertise and promote and roll out a consultation there's some things are failing from communities that the planning authorities are actually quite happy when very few people engage because that creates workload and issues around that so is there a culture change with planning authority I think we want to so we want to see much more use of digital and social media again 10 years ago it hadn't been there when we did a development in baloch we had we've set up a facebook and lots and lots of people that wouldn't want to go into draft the community halls commented on that so we need to be much more innovative in the terms of how we use the social media both both facebook twitter but also nowadays we have the charret process which is very visually attractive and can lead to much more sort of using 3d technology so all of that is there that helps and I think we need to embrace that much much more and we haven't done that in planning whereas in other in other policy areas we have worked much more with the social media okay mr how did you want to I think you know the role of local members is absolutely key to this as well and I would like to think that you know that's a sort of I know that kind of scenario you described there can happen I would like to think that you know we have a early consultation process where local council members and local communities will see these things coming much earlier in the process and we'd be much more prepared so that there is there's still a balance here but you know the five-year problem I think we've got two problems at the moment is that things happen too quickly without you know consultation and then we fall into a five-year cycle which is constantly repeated and constantly underachieved and we have to get away from from both of those those failures I think. I promise I was listening to you Mr Hamilton as I was getting bits for supplementary questions as you were answering that that question I'm going to have the final question not just now but Elaine Smith will ask that in a moment I've got a couple of bits for supplementaries along along this theme and Graham Simpson first and then for a bit Andy Wightman. Yeah thanks convener it was really just to follow up on the whole community engagement theme and you mentioned community councils I think all of us have had varied experiences with community councils one of the issues is that they can just consist of very very few people with their own agendas who don't actually engage with the communities that they're meant to serve so I wonder if you'd looked at different models of engaging with the wider community whatever we mean by that other than community councils which very often can't work don't work. Well asked community councils rather than instead of because even the good community I mean all community councils I go to are good and I'm not just saying that they are but by I don't know whether Mr Simpson goes to that he can stand to account for that but they're only representative of those who attend community councils which by definition is a tiny section of society so I think that's a really valid point how do you engage with the wider community out with community councils. I think we touched on that in our report community councils are the only ones that have a statutory role so for many local authorities planning officials that's where they go to however increasingly what we're seeing with local locality planning we're seeing that communities can elect their own representatives to sit on the locality plans so these two things have to come together equally I think it is almost like if you have a particular instrument then that attracts particular kind of people so right now community councils statutory role is only limited to development management that's a very much saying I don't want that or I want that no not here and not there whereas if you have it in the development plan stages you attract different types of people because it's about vision it's about the next 10 15 20 years also I think again with the UN Charter of the Rights of the Child we need to bring in more young people it wasn't just a token yet another group in order to raise awareness of young people and to be involved in a discussion I think it is really upon us now demonstrated that we can bring in young people and that they have a role in this democratic process there are lots and lots of very active development trusts immunity groups who are out there but they're not having a statutory role but they're engaging so yeah I think there's a lot more work to be done I think I managed to get one of us out of a hole there Mr Simpson relation to community councils I'm not sure which one of us got out of the hole but I think one of us did Andy Wightman very briefly I mean there's an issue arose in my constituency where an applicant wanted to demolish a building it was widespread community opposition unanimous rejected rejection by the council I went to appeal and the reporter approved it do you think that's fair is absolutely looking at the evidence I mean from what you had the way you're describing it it seems not fair because of whatever but I think you have to look at the evidence exactly what is the building for wise so it's very challenging but that's again touches on the role of the reporter why and at what point are they coming in and we want to have a much more front-loaded system much more front loading of the system so that the reporter is much much upfront not at that late stage of the attudicator again that's negative but the reason I raised that particular issue was there's no front loading of a system where someone suddenly comes along says I want to demolish that building I see it a lot in I think if I could just say one thing it's difficult to comment in you know one specific case or that and obviously you know no matter what the forum is that the person that made the application would expect to have a hearing but again what what we're looking to try to achieve in the report would be that not only planning applications but planning hearings would be taken at local level so that you know at the moment the system can seem very remote to communities where it's taken away to Falkirk you know or the reporter's unit in Falkirk and we are making recommendations about how you know appeal appeals or hearings should be conducted you know earlier if possible through the gate check system but in principle if they can be achieved in the local the local area okay just thinking again about aligning development planning and community planning we'll talk about front loading of consultation some people mentioned community councils being one group and I know Petra you made the point a couple of times that there's no one community would you agree that when we're looking at consultation we need to find ways that communities of interest can sort of almost opt in and out so that they're not fixed in a single structure like a community council and that's the only way of contributing that that we do find a way to have people you know kind of coming in and out of the process almost yes and and we mustn't forget it at the moment local community councils and a lot of them are very very hard working and we work with with almost all of them but I think what it is they are definitely under resource but they are themselves supposed to be representative of at the lowest level of democracy so something has sadly gone wrong when they only get a couple of hundred pounds a year so it's a lot of goodwill in some areas a lot of goodwill depending on that and there's only so much at the current role that can do so I don't think I don't think currently that that system works very well but I totally agree that where when they are becoming more totally representative of their community then they should almost likely be required and asked for community of interest to come forward we know for example there's a big food growing crisis in some areas and there's a lot of allotment holders who want to be more involved who want to see more allotments being created equally at the same time we see much more hydro power schemes coming forward now they're community of interest they're not community councils but sometimes in areas community council will object to that scheme coming forward so yes there needs to be a much broader dialogue definitely okay do you want to follow up on that Ruth? Okay Eileen we have got time for one final question all right thanks Phil can I maybe roll in too it was when my colleague was asking my colleague was asking about the reporters unit and I think there are issues there but can we just clarify though that the Scottish Government don't have to take that advice that they could take a different advice it could take a different decision so that was the first thing but secondly your recommendation 28 talks and I suppose it ties in a lot of what's been said before you talk about repeat applications being managed more effectively but I just wonder could you get into a bit more detail on how you think that could happen what could that entail? yeah the legislation I think does need to to be tightened to to avoid you know the problem with with repeat applications that there is I think room potentially for abuse there where developers could come back time and time again and I know how wearing that is on a community when they think they have dealt with an application which may have you know gone through an appeal process and been refused and then suddenly you know it's slightly different but similar application starts to to run and I can understand how that would have a very negative effect in communities now how that would anger people so you know we do think it's an area that needs to be tightened it's probably not you know the most drastic you know of the recommendations I think it you know it goes with a number where you know we do in Scotland have a quite a well regarded in fact a very well regarded planning system and that this is an area where I think that there are powers that need to be looked at to to similar to enforcement powers no I totally agree I think that that's the number of many communities when they see an application they may be objected they had consultation and then it comes back again again again and there needs to be something done about that just on the reporter if the community for instance had objected the local government have council have refused planning goes to an appeal on a reporter the reporter then wants to recommend that it goes ahead Scottish government could actually take a different view I think I think equate what John just said that the reporter sitting somewhere else you know that that again it's not helpful for the current perception of the system okay well can all the remains now it's for me to thank both of you for your attendance this morning's evidence session with a very small amount of time left if there's anything you feel you wanted to say today but our questioning hasn't given you the opportunity to put it on the record any final comments you might want to make before we close this particular session I would like to say something in it it's about the recommendations we make about the formulation of an infrastructure agency in Scotland I think that's a big handicap in the planning system in Scotland where there isn't an appropriate forum for the key agencies involved in the public sector in funding development to basically convene around development plans and the system at the moment is almost chaotic at times where you know we have different agencies who have no way of consulting with each each other properly in the planning regime so I think you know and it's why we did refer in our address you know we appreciate there's a constraint on public spending but you know to really make us a step change in the planning system that's an area we would have to look at either through an infrastructure agency or another example I could give would be in England where there's a homes and communities agency we don't have an equivalent in Scotland the nearest equivalent that we had was a Scottish special housing association or Scottish homes they are now obsolete I'm not quite sure of why that's the case but I would see that as being a requirement for you know an area to be looked at you know closely the recommendation that we put forward were our recommendations that hopefully makes the system more efficient but also much much more inclusive and by front loading it and opening it up to much more diverse groups of people I think we can achieve quite a lot okay well all that remains now is for me to thank you once again for giving evidence this morning thank you and we'll suspend briefly for a few moments okay welcome back everyone and good morning still just yes can I welcome panel 2 to the committee which is Kevin Stewart our minister for local government and housing and George McNearney our chief planner thank you both of you for coming along this morning now minister I believe you've got an opening statement for us yes please convener thank you and good morning over the last year we've had a unique opportunity to take a fresh look at the Scottish planning system the independent panel chaired by Crawford beverage undertook a comprehensive review of the system the review drew an extensive written and oral evidence and resulted in a positive and insightful report the panel set out 48 recommendations for improving planning in Scotland our task now is to consider their findings in more detail and decide how we can change the planning system so that it delivers more for Scotland's economy and communities the independent review covered six areas of the planning system where there is room for improvement we have now begun work to develop a full programme of planning reform we recognise the importance of planning and supporting inclusive growth which enables positive change for all of Scotland's distinctive places and communities it is too early to say exactly what future reforms might look like however I do have some initial thoughts on the priorities for a future white paper and wider actions I agree that there's much to be gained from significantly streamlining development planning in Scotland the strategic scale of planning is key to this we will be working with stakeholders over the coming weeks to explore alternative models that prioritise infrastructure delivery and providing communities with a greater say housing delivery is of course a key priority for this government not least given our commitment to delivering 50,000 new affordable homes the panel suggested a different approach to planning for housing which focuses on long-term strategic planning and aims to diversify delivery we will be exploring how this can be achieved in the coming weeks the panel concluded that infrastructure is critical we need to look at different approaches that better align investment in infrastructure with the areas where growth and development is happening to ensure that high-quality places are created for communities the independent report also highlighted the need for improved efficiency and transparency in development management I agree that an overhaul of development management is not required as it improved significantly as a result of the 2006 planning act however there is still scope for targeted improvements I will be particularly interested to see how more applications can be removed from the planning process to free up resources leadership resources and skills is a further key theme that has emerged from the report we begin a process of we began a process of culture changed when we introduced the 2006 act but this remains unfinished business there is a need to ensure that planning authorities are adequately resourced as well as a continuing emphasis on improving performance finally I believe that the community empowerment in the planning process must be central to the future of planning reform we need to ensure that communities and individual members of the public understand trust and actively participate in planning if we want to get the most out of the system we'll be exploring all of these issues with a wide range of stakeholders in the coming months we will set out a range of options and ideas in a white paper and I expect further open an inclusive debate on the issues following its publication the review panel found innovative examples from around the country where planning makes a positive contribution but they were tasked with focusing on where the system is not realising its potential I believe we are on the cusp of realising the full potential of planning to create great places for all of Scotland's people and that we should grasp and take that opportunity I am happy to hear your views and answer your questions on our own on going programme of work on planning reform thank you convener thank you very much minister we're grateful for that statement it could be perhaps start where we left off in the last session where Mr Hamilton put on record it's part of the independent review group that one of the recommendations he wanted to draw to our attention was the need for a national infrastructure agency or even something potentially looking about what I believe is a kind of homes and communities agency in England the picture was painted that there's a lot of good efforts taking place in the development and planning process in local authorities and across Scotland it's not always focused and they're not always talking to each other and the idea of a national infrastructure agency would be would be beneficial I'm just wondering if you could say a little bit in relation to that obviously convener as I've said we're at the very beginning of a process and we are going to talk to stakeholders about all of the recommendations that have been put forward I'm aware of the English situation and I'm also aware of some of the difficulties that have arisen from what they have established there and you know one of the things which I would be wanting to ensure if we moved along that line is that we would not make the same mistakes I'll bring in Mr McNairney in terms of some of the engagement that we've already had around about this and where we intend to to go in the next few weeks okay and thanks minister and convener we've let six research projects to support the outcome of the planning review and one of those is is about infrastructure charging learning from experience elsewhere particularly around SIL south of the border I think we recognise that the funding of infrastructure over the last decade or more has become a real challenge for delivery and this is a good time to build on the recommendations and try and learn how we can join up and use what finance is available more effectively so the working groups which start on Monday and Tuesday include a group of experts on infrastructure and we will be taking some of these questions to them as the start of an engagement process around infrastructure but the other six themes as well I think one of the other things convener because you did mention the the English system one of the major criticisms that have been about that system is that it's overly complex and it's only suited to market conditions in the southeast of England and in particular around about London so obviously that's one of the things that we'll look at but we also have to be aware that there has been criticism of that what has been deemed by some to be an overly complex system that's helpful and one of the things that was suggested in the review in relation to funding infrastructure was the idea of an infrastructure levy on developers potentially and I would sit that beside section 75 agreements which I know have declined and are not as useful as they used to be and also perhaps and have not always been used for the intended purposes the discussion we had earlier was quite often around that is a way for community sometimes to buy into development to get some form of local community benefit which not necessarily the purpose of a section 75 agreement but there could be some concerns that there's there's perhaps some tensions there because any money that is taken for national infrastructure may further undermine section 75 agreements and whether they're actually now being used for their initial purpose or not is a moot point also so just maybe some early thinking about where section 75 agreement sit beside an infrastructure levy and how we get community benefit within within developments at the early stage also well section 75 agreements were never about additional benefit I think that you said that yourself there it is to ensure that the infrastructure is there and as I've gone about the country during the course of the summer I've been asking some of the folk that have come across various questions around about section 75 and obviously you would well imagine developers are often not particularly happy about having to pay for new schools for example the other side of the coin is that some communities feel that their local authority is not making best use of the current section 75 arrangements Mr McNearney will correct me here but two councils were responsible for what percentage of section 75 36 36 percent of section 75 agreements now you know one of the things which I need to get knowledge of is why is it that certain folk are making that much use of section 75 and others are not this is one of the areas which is of great interest to me in terms of what the stakeholders come up with as Mr McNearney says we have the workshops over next Monday and Tuesday they are really important to us in terms of our engagement and getting the knowledge of what's going on out there prior to that I had a number of round table events with various parties in between the publication of the report and the Government's response now I think that in terms of the information that we gather that in itself will help guide us to where we need to go in terms of some of those issues that's very helpful would it be reasonable to suggest and without presupposing what the working groups will what will take forward that if section 75 agreements are not always been used for what they were initially intended for and there's discussion about infrastructure levy there may also be discussions for about what community benefit would look like and whether if section 75 is not the most appropriate vehicle for that and community benefit may not necessarily be about infrastructure but community empowerment that that's something that could be discussed about teasing out how you co-produce with community benefit from the early stages within within developments I'm sure that these issues will come up at the workshops next week because we have community representations at those at those workshops so obviously we are keen to hear what communities views are on the current arrangements and the proposals that have been put forward by the independent panel just finally in relation to the six working groups that are being established or have been established the workshops you talk about are different from the working groups is that correct minister no the working groups will be taking part in these workshops on Monday and Tuesday so it would be helpful whether just now or if you could perhaps write to us if you don't have the information at hand about who were invited to sit on the working groups that I know we've got an open petition from planning democracy before us and what and they have written to myself asking about how we make sure individual members or very localized community organisations can be represented on some of these working groups and that it's not for me to say who should or shouldn't be on them but I suspect that that was an appeal from planning democracy to be involved I would imagine convener there are well over 100 invitees I signed all of the letters personally because I wanted to see exactly who was coming to the event and to make sure that it was as diverse and representative as possible planning democracy have been invited to the event next week as have a number of other community organisations too. I will get officials to write to you with all of those folks who were invited but beyond that I believe that all of the attendees will appear on the website at the beginning of next week am I right Mr McNair now? That's very helpful and it's not for our commitment to a plea for one organisation over another it merely made representations to the committee hence why they were name checked within this morning's evidence session but can I just check separately from that there are working groups whose work will be on-going and those working groups are hosting workshops next week and I suppose what I'm interested in is who sits on the working group rather than who's going to the workshops which are two separate things? I've maybe confused things a little bit convener I'll let Mr McNair and I explain. Invitations went out for a range of people to be part of the working groups and the workshops next week are an opportunity for them to come together so the six working groups will meet in Plenary they'll also drive forward answers to some of the key review questions and will publish an overview of how those workshops have gone they'll also be an online discussion platform between now and the publication of a white paper which we intend to be around December. That's really helpful and thank you. Mr Gibson? Thank you very much convener I just want to focus on housing if that's okay convener and what one of the areas I want to talk to you about is the issue of simplified planning zones. You've said in the 10 recommendations that you're moving forward immediately that you'll take forward a pilot of simplified planning zones for housing. I'm just wondering if you can explain me a bit more about what a simplified planning zone is, how it will work and where the pilot is likely to take place and when it's likely to get on running. Okay thank you for that. We'll progress pilot simplified planning zones for housing as a priority convener. We don't yet know where these pilots will be at the moment but we'll work with planning authorities to identify suitable candidates. Currently there are only arrangements for two SPZs in Scotland that's Hillington Business Park and Renfrew town centres and we believe that simplified planning zones offer an adaptable approach to the delivery of high quality housing and to make areas investment ready. The front loading of site assessments, site briefs and master planning would allow for early and effective community engagement at the beginning of the development process while supporting placemaking in a holistic way and I put the emphasis on the placemaking there which I think is really important. SPZs could assist by embedding an infrastructure first approach development and encourage greater innovation in the delivery models. We're currently putting all those plans to pilot SPZs for housing and we'll examine a lot of those issues more when we're actually in practice. I'm afraid, as I said, I cannot tell the committee at this moment in time where these pilots are likely to take place as yet but as soon as I have that information I will certainly share that with the committee. I don't know if Mr McNearney wants to add to anything there. A couple of points, mainly about what they do. A simplified planning zone would remove the need for full planning permission so there would be, as the minister says, a front loaded process around defining what area might be subject of a simplified planning zone. The planning authority would do that. I think that we will ask for interest from planning authorities and work with them in taking that forward. There are some restrictions that a simplified planning zone currently wouldn't apply to areas that are protected under habitats, for example. We would need to look at requirements for environmental assessment and community involvement but once that's in place it would be for developers to then to build. There might be a design brief but you wouldn't need to go through the planning process so it would remove the need for planning permission. There would still be a need for a building warrant but working with the planning authority we would hope to align any other consent so that it's a much more straightforward route to getting on site. In terms of the report itself in paga 415 it says that some communities are not receptive to new housing development and this exacerbated where infrastructure is already under pressure. Obviously, there's an issue about improving infrastructure and I think that's something that we all want to look at. I had a meeting with the chief executive of the Ayrsharn health board and he expressed concern that the planning system, for example, doesn't really involve the health board. For example, there could be a proposal to build several hundred new houses and yet there doesn't seem to be any interaction with the local GP practices to see whether or not they will be able to, for example, have the space to take on additional medical staff or whatever. Is the issue of the simplified planning zones a way of trying to square the circle of trying to ensure that housing is provided even though the communities might not be receptive or is that part of the front-loading exercise? I'm just wondering how all of this ties in together. I think that what you have asked in those questions is brought bits of the jigsaw which maybe are not altogether at this moment in time and how we bring all of those pieces of the jigsaw together to make the planning system much simpler and easier and to take account of varied views. Let me start off with your question about no consultation with the health service in terms of some aspects of the planning system. I've come across that within my constituency as well at points, Mr Gibson. I think that what we need to do—this is our great opportunity—is to make sure that everybody who needs and should be engaged in the planning system is engaged in that system. We have the opportunity, I think, to look at all of those issues, which, in fairness, largely in the past have been a little bit put to one side. I hope that, in terms of what we're doing, engagement and formulation of the white paper, we will look at engagement a lot more to make sure that we have the right infrastructure to support development in a particular area. Beyond that, there have been various suggestions made about how maybe we deal with some of the infrastructure questions that are often put. One of the things that has been suggested, rather than upfront contribution at a certain point, what we should look at is maybe trying to facilitate loan investment from Government or other agencies to do whatever is required and then recoup that money back at a later date. I'm willing to look at all of those things. There have been a huge number of suggestions in terms of the recommendations from the independent panel's report itself, but, since then, there have been a number of other issues that have come up that we will consider and look at and will be discussed in greater depth over the course of next Monday and Tuesday. On the issue of regional housing targets, you might recall on 29 June about the 10,000-year affordable houses and how they would be distributed. You said that there would really be demand-led, so it would be based on housing proposals being put forward in specific local authorities. I'm just wondering how that ties in with the regional housing target, because if it's going to be demand-led from developers or local authorities wanting to gather in certain areas to put forward proposals, the regional housing target seems to almost contradict that by having a top-down approach. I was trying to tease out from the previous panel what the regional targets meant, but I didn't feel that I got a clear answer to that question. Mr Hamilton is smiling in the background, but I think that we need to be able to define what we're talking about here if we're going to take that forward. Mr Gibson is aware that local authorities currently have housing needs assessments and they decide where they are going to target resource to deliver the affordable housing that they require. However, all of that normally feeds in to the strategic development plan as well. Sometimes those things are not entirely in sync. I speak for the panel. I think that maybe what they were trying to get at was to try and get all of that in sync, but, as far as it goes at this moment, it's local authorities that look at those housing needs assessments. That's where we develop what investment we are putting in a local area. I can't speak for the panel on what they thought about that, but I'm assuming that it has something to do with sometimes the lack of linkage between housing numbers in the local development plan and the strategic development plan. Mr McNearney? I'm making an assumption here as well, but I read that recommendation as part of simplifying of the landscape of plans in this instance around strategic development plans. If targets were more visible in the national planning framework, then there would be a tighter alignment between the national planning framework and what is provided in local development plans. One of the issues around strategic development plans that we support strategic planning is that plans commence at various different dates, so it's quite complicated. It's around being clearer. What would the regional area be? I think that's what you were probing earlier. On the face of it, it might be the area that was the four city regions, but, of course, there are other parts of the country, from Highland to the Ayrshars, who would also look for a steer, one might think. That's exactly the kind of thing that we would look for in the working groups to discuss and propose some options around. Thank you. Thank you, Cymru. Okay. Thank you very much and good morning minister, still is morning. In your opening statement, you mentioned the importance of community empowerment involvement with stakeholders, which I think we would all agree that that's an important issue, but unfortunately we've heard some evidence about the third party or equal right of appeal and we have a petition on going at the moment on this issue. Given that that is an issue, and it's actually quite supported among certain parts of the civic sector and parts of the policy and planning sectors, I just wonder why you've come at the conclusion that you've come to under immediate actions number nine, where you're saying that in line with the panel's recommendation you don't intend to introduce a third party or equal right of appeal. Now the reason I ask is that there wasn't any specific questions when the panel were calling for evidence on the issue, but of those people who did mention it, 70 per cent, as I put to the panel, did actually agree with some kind of equal right of appeal or at least an examination of it. So I just wonder why you don't—basically it looks like the debate's been a bit closed down on this minister, so maybe you could just give us a bit of an explanation around that. I think that the key thing in all of this—and this is where I agree with the panel—is to make sure that at the very start communities are involved in the planning process. If that happens, we see some of the areas of tension being ironed out quite quickly. Let me give you two examples, convener. During the course of the summer, I was in Ardrossan in Mr Gibson's constituency and Cunningham Housing Association were building 70 units there. I broke the ground at that development. There were a huge number of members of the community there who were engaged at the very start of the process, who obviously, as is always the case, some folk are not happy about various things. However, in terms of the engagement there, those difficulties were ironed out, so you have a happy community and they can proceed. A similar scenario this week in Aberdeen at Craig Inch's prison, which will have 124 affordable homes for key workers, the community council there and residents were not happy about the sighting of one of the buildings. Early engagement meant that the Sanctuary Housing Association, who are building that development, actually agreed to move one of those buildings to suit the community and local residents. In terms of the early engagements, it is good for all. In terms of some of the difficulties that there have been in the past, it is because there has not been enough engagement with communities or not the right engagement with communities. As we move on with technology and the panel highlighted that, we have the scenario of being able to do 3D visualisations. You could have a walk through of a development that is not even there. You can put it in place with the current features that are there. It is difficult for some people to look at a plan in a bit of paper. It is difficult for me to look at a plan in a bit of paper and to envisage exactly what is going to happen there. Those opportunities are huge and getting communities on board early with their ideas can iron out tensions at an early stage. However, let me come back to the point of third party appeal itself. You are right. Our response confirms the consistent line by government that has been held for a number of years. We agree with the panel's recommendations and we do not intend to introduce a third party or equal right of appeal. We will definitely focus on more effective methods of engaging people at that earlier stage. As Ms Smith is well aware—she has been here since the beginning—the introduction of a third party right of appeal on the planning system has been considered in this place on a number of occasions. In advance of the previous planning bill in 2004, the then Scottish Executive undertook a full public consultation on the introduction of a third party right of appeal. The issue was also considered by Jeremy Rowan Robinson and his paper, Options for Change, which were published in 2003. At every stage, the Parliament has said no. Thank you very much for that minister, but I suppose that the question is more about whether you have made the decision to align the panel's recommendation. I do not understand specifically what evidence it was based on since it did not call for evidence on the issue for people to input, too. That was not a specific question. If front-loading—which I certainly hope that it would be—we would all want to avoid conflict, but if you are confident that that is going to be the way forward, I point out that my colleague Graham Simpson asked of the panel earlier why he then has any right of appeal. I can put that there for a moment. Secondly, the evidence that has been taken on—the only evidence that seems to have been researched on it is Professor Ellis from Belfast University. He gave a quote to the petitions committee, which, if I might just quote, said, in the context of the Irish planning system, extended rights of appeal played an important and valued role. They were accepted and welcomed by a wide range of parties and there was very limited evidence of abuse, so that seemed to put to bed the nimby fears that made them rather unfounded. I suppose that what people are concerned about is that it seems to have just been shut down rather than being part of a wider consultation. 2004 was a long time ago, and I cannot recall the exact outcome of the public consultation at that time, did the public overwhelmingly want. I write of appeal. I know that several members toyed with the idea of private member bills over the years, but I am not sitting here advocating when we are another. I am just trying to tease out why it looks as if it might just have been closed as part of the debate. For instance, will it be discussed next week? Convener, Ms Smith is playing devil's advocate a little bit, which I do myself from time to time. First of all, I think that it would be fair to say that the panel got a fair amount of views about third party right of appeal. If I can play devil's advocate a little bit, the question that I would ask would be, why would you engage at the start of the planning process if your intention is just going to be to object at the end, come what may? That is me being devil's advocate in a way. If I can go further, I am not aware of the professor's work, but I will look at that. Some of the arguments that I have seen about the system in Ireland is an accusation by many that it is a centralisation of the planning process, and I would much prefer if decisions were in the main taken at local level with the level of community engagement that is required. The other thing about, and again I am playing devil's advocate, we have probably all come across somebody at some point in councils or in Parliament, somebody who has basically told us that they are going to object to every single thing that is put forward in their neighbourhood. How do we deal with that kind of vexatious situation where there might be appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal? Just to add very briefly to that, our systems are different. In Scotland, for example, we have tended to have quite full examinations of the development plan, so that is quite early in the process where public have an opportunity to make comment on the plans and also pre-application discussion around major developments where they have an opportunity. The 2006 proposals did seek to frontload community engagement to try and reduce the fact that people were unhappy at the end of the process and to try and respond to arguments for third party right of appeal. It is clear that those from the review panel's findings can be built on and we can go much further, but the aspiration is for people to take ownership of the development plan. It is a development plan that has the force of law at the end of the day. One of the things that the panel was asked about was exactly how we can collaborate more with communities. There was not a specific question on third party rights of appeal, but we did ask, do we need to change the system to ensure that everyone has a fair hearing and plan and decision making that is in that territory of fairness and trying to avoid that communities feel planning is something that is done to them? The other key ingredient here is around the impact on how the system works overall. Would a third party right of appeal streamline the system or would it make it more bureaucratic? Would it make the outcome more unpredictable? Would it make it more unlikely that people would invest in Scotland when in other administrations they do not have a third party right of appeal? That whole thing about growth particularly at this point in the economy is something that would be in sharp focus around a third party right of appeal. Sorry Andy, I have got Graham Simpson with my supplementary in relation to this, but after that, you had indicated that you all wanted to ask about shared services, not even an opportunity, but I should have asked that supplementary to move the conversation on. I do not want to get bogged down with this issue, but you did play devil's advocate, so if I could turn your point on its head, if we are going to involve communities right from the start of the planning process, you said why you would then allow them to appeal, I think that is what you said. You could also say that about developers, could you? I think that we have a system in which the right of appeal harks back to 1947, to ensure that any denial of what had previously been a right to develop had the appropriate scrutiny. I think that what we have here is the opportunity in terms of public engagement to make a huge amount of change and to involve as many folk in the process as possible, and not just in terms of a single application, but in every single aspect of the process itself. I think that if we do that, if we front-load the system to ensure that there is the level of engagement that I would like to see, which follows through in the Government's empowerment agenda in other areas, then we will create a much better outcome for all, in my opinion. In terms of the appeal scenario, I know an expert on the Irish system, but there is that accusation of centralisation. What has been said previously about reporters, why is it that reporters have decisions or why is it that I ultimately may have a decision, because they do not know anything about a local area or I do not know anything about a local area? What we would have if we introduced third party right of appeal is a much more bureaucratic system, a much more centralised system, and, as has rightly been pointed out, a system that would not be fit to deal with the current situations that we face in terms of the difficulties that may occur in terms of economic development if Brexit goes ahead. If we have a system that is very, very much different from elsewhere in the islands, it may well be that folk choose to invest elsewhere, which would be a particularly difficult situation in my opinion. I think that the best way of dealing with this is at the early stages. I have given you examples where, if engagement is done right, you can take communities with you. I think that that is a way that we should go not just in single applications, but on every single aspect of the system. Mr McNair, do you want to add anything? Well, the only other thing that I think I would add is that, since the 2006 act, practice around engagement has drastically improved. It is more common now for communities to use the charret process or other engagement techniques, the place standards being taken up across the country as a good method to have conversations with communities about what is important to them. We need to do a lot more around aligning community planning and spatial planning, but if we can do that, it is all part of getting a stronger collaboration about what people feel are the important things that need to change in their areas. Andy, is it on community planning that you want to come in this area? I will follow up on this convener. It was section 14 of the 47 act that gave the right to appeal, and I think that one of the questions that we are going to be grappling with is precisely that if the system is better front loaded, there is more engagement early on, the plans are clearer, there is more consent, there is more buy-in. It does in fact undermine the case for having any right of appeal for any party and that, at the end of the day, if at least we can equalise the rights, as it were. I am not talking about introducing an equal right of appeal, but equalise the rights, that might get somewhere close to persuading those who remain to be persuaded that the system is going to deliver better upfront planning and consultation. One of the things that the convener is here is the delay and uncertainty for both the public and the private sector. The system is criticised already as being slow and unresponsive. With the third right of appeal, it could be abused even more through unjustified opposition to development proposals intended to serve the wider public interest. There is already a situation where people have the ability to go to judicial review in a point of law, so that exists. If I look at my own home patch where the western peripheral route, the Aberdeen bypass, which was first envisaged in 1948, was hugely backed by the vast majority, the vast, vast majority of the people of the north-east of Scotland. It was delayed again and again and again because of court processes. I think that we would probably enter such situations on a much more regular basis if third party right of appeal was introduced. Things would then end up at the reporters, which already some folks say is centralisation, and then possibly end up in my desk. I do want to move on from that, because there are a whole range of issues that I want us to discuss. Just for clarity, Mr Whiteman was talking about, if we get the front-loading correct or improve it, is there a rationale for diluting a developer's right of appeals? That is what he was asking. I do not want to dwell on that, I really do want to move on, but I think that that was the core of what Mr Whiteman was asking. I do not think that we heard anything about your views on that. First of all, I will take in Mr McNairney, because he wants to make a point, and then I will come to that. Just very briefly, the 1947 situation was essentially that a landowner was no longer free to dispose of his property as he saw fit and had to seek permission. That is the context for being able to appeal against the decision that they were aggrieved about. The current situation is not just landowner versus an aggrieved community. There is also the role of a local authority, so an applicant for planning permission needs to approach the local authority when decisions are taken by members, generally, who are elected to take those decisions. If there is a decision that is contrary to the development plan and it is a major development, the full council would take a decision on that. There is a democratic element to that as well, all of which is built on the initial engagement, the strength of the plan and the member involvement in that decision. I think the other thing in terms of the dilution scenario. Most of this is around individual applications, but if we have gone through the scenario of designating something in the local development plan or maybe even in the national planning framework, all of that is in there, but it is the individual application that, for whatever reason, may be rejected at a local level. There is the argument about why you cannot appeal that when it is in the local development plan or it is in the national planning framework. Sometimes, in terms of planning as a whole, people focus on that individual application. What I hope that we can do is engage much more members of the public, not just about those individual applications, but about planning as a whole in their area. At that point, we may get rid of some of the tensions that currently exist. We are not going to ask any more questions on third party right of appeal, but that was quite a helpful clarification, minister, because that was a very clear answer to the question of the dilution of developers right of appeal. I am grateful for you putting that on the record. Mr Simpson, do you want to come back and ask about shared services? Yes, absolutely. I will ask about shared services and another matter as well, because I think that it is all related to the effectiveness of local authority planning departments. We are well aware that many of them are struggling, frankly, for money. I wonder whether you can give us your thoughts on what you mean by shared services, what services you are thinking of and if you can also touch on planning fees and tell us your thoughts on that. Why should individual councils not be able to set their own fees? Would you be minded to allow charging for pre-application advice, for example? I do not think that that is mentioned anywhere. In terms of shared services, convener, when I was previously before the committee at the beginning of this term, I talked about the exporting of best practice right across the country, which I probably harp on about far too much. We need to ensure that we do export best practice. Beyond that, there is also the ability to share the experts. There may be planning authorities that have an unusual application for their patch and do not have the expertise around that particular area. Why not share that expertise right across the country? There should be no difficulty in doing so, as far as I am concerned. In terms of fees, I think that fees will be one of the major planks of discussion next week. I think that there are many folks who feel that fees should rise, including a number of folk in the development industry itself. I think that what we will have to look at is if we choose to increase fees, that we also ensure that productivity rises, too. Those will, I am quite sure, form a major part of the discussion next Monday and Tuesday without a doubt. On sharing services or skills, I think that it varies across the country, but already planning authorities share some specialist staff that they do not have in-house. It is really for consideration with planning authorities and with COSLA, the extent to which they want to take that further. Obviously, there is potential to have much more in terms of shared services. In terms of the planning fee, the fee in Scotland is significantly lower than in other administrations at just over £20,000. As the minister says, he will be interested in us consulting on how that situation might change. Minister, do you want to add something there? What I was going to say is that we have already confirmed that we will consult on enhanced fees as one of those early actions. It will be one of those things that we will be up for discussion next week without a doubt. In terms of enhancing fees, that also has to lead to improvements in performance. Going back to shared services, councils already talk to each other. They do share best practice that is going on right now. Are you thinking of forcing shared services on to councils or will you leave it to them? If you are going to leave it to them, why do anything? I am not in the business of forcing people into doing things, but I think that what we should be looking at, what councils should be looking at, is what can they do in terms of enhancing the services that they provide by sharing expertise that might actually be people to provide that improved service that is required. Heads of planning Scotland are key stakeholders in what we are embarking on. They are aware—I am quite sure—that there could be better use of personnel if there was sharing going on. Again, I am sure that that will feature very highly in terms of the discussions that will take place next week. I would much rather, as I have said before, use the carrot and try to encourage folk to do those things, rather than the stick in forcing them to do those things. I have to say that there has been pretty positive noises from the Heads of Planning Scotland about the independent panel's report as a whole. I think that there is a recognition that there could be much more sharing of expertise. I think that, in terms of that, I could not be getting the review wrong. The previous committee sat on a local government in 2007. Derbyrthner review was published with great fanfare, which I think was Glasgow in the Clyde Valley review for sharing services. I could have got the name wrong, but I think that we are still waiting for any action points to be taken forward on that. Just because local authorities are up for it, does it necessarily mean that you will never see any change? We are seeing change in many areas of shared services. I have given the example before where you are sat now, rather than this side, about Aberdeen City and Shire's joint procurement unit and the best practice of sharing services there. The amount of money that has saved the public purse that has been invested in public services. We can see that others are now looking at some of the things that Highlanders are now about to join Aberdeen City and Shire. I think that others are considering it. I believe that we are seeing a sea change in terms of attitudes towards shared services. I think that it is one of the areas that I had great interest in when I was on this committee, and one that I will continue to keep a close eye on as Minister. As I go round the country, I have been encouraging people to look very carefully at what they can do in terms of shared services, not necessarily with their next-door neighbour because it does not have to be geographical. It does not necessarily have to be with other local authorities—we are drifting away from planning a bit here, convener—but it could be with other public bodies, too. I think that folk are beginning to realise that shared services are a way forward in order to save the public purse and to allow for more of investment in public services in tough times. The white man will get his back on track, but, because you have already asked a question already, is it on shared services or fees? I will still take Mr Stewart in who has not asked a question yet this session. Alexander Stewart Thank you, minister. The report indicates that there is no doubt that there has to be serious changes and significant changes within the planning process so that we can ensure that it is much more positive. At the present moment, there is a lot of negativity around the whole planning issue, and many communities and authorities have to deal with that. To try and get from the situation in which it is a problem and not a positive situation to getting into a positive situation, the workload and the number of applications that many authorities have to manage means that they require more funding and more resource. If we are going to achieve that, we have to look at some of the areas that you have already touched on today. That is vitally important. However, the biggest issue—I asked the panel earlier before you arrived—was about the whole enforcement of planning and how that can be managed and how that can be evolved. If we can manage to crack that nut in some way, we may manage to make a much more positive contribution. I would like to hear your views on that. Alexander Stewart I think that you raise a very good point. From my own perspective, there have been points in which a lot of enforcement has caused me some troubles over my years on a council. One of the things that I have already said that we will look at is whether the penalties are severe enough in those regards. It would be better if people did not do naughty things in the first place—let's be honest with you. Are the penalties severe enough to try and stop some of the things that have gone on? We will look at that very closely, because at this moment in time, looking at it, I don't know if penalties themselves would put folk off doing certain things in certain areas. I think that we have to get to a point in which, in this case, we probably need to apply more of this stick. Alexander Stewart I would agree that the stick is much needed in this process. You have touched on it, but there is no question that some developers are knocking down a few trees and a few thousand pounds that would be charged for that as peanuts in comparison to what they could make in a development that they might well progress thereafter. I look forward to seeing what comes forward, Minister, so that we can also make a contribution on that as well. We have heard this morning, Minister, about how improving planning can help with all manner of things, such as community engagement and empowerment. I wondered what your opinion was on the extent of the problems in housing delivery, how much of that is down to planning and how much is down to other factors. One of the things about the job that I have at this moment in time is that I am trying to get all the ducks in a row to ensure that we deliver on the Government's 50,000 affordable homes over the course of this Parliament. I think that there are difficulties with planning, but there are also other difficulties in terms of some of the utilities in terms of land and a number of other things. I think that planning itself does cause some difficulties, but it is not the only thing by a long shot. In terms of what you are talking about, in terms of communities in place, I think that planning itself has a great role to play in what we are embarking on here. Mr Stewart talked about that sometimes there are not many positives, but in terms of place making itself to create the right environments, what we are doing is we are not embarking on 50,000 houses without thinking about place as well. In terms of some of the things that I have seen of late convener with good planning, with good project management and with community input, we are seeing some of the best places that I have seen for a fair while. I will give you an example, convener, in terms of ffarn and gardens, a shet Austin housing development in the east end of Glasgow, where everything has come together in that little community. The planning is right, the design is right, the place is fantastic, you have got a lot of happy people there, and if folk are happy, that often resolves other difficulties that we may have to deal with from a public service perspective. In terms of all that we are about to do here, one of the things that we cannot lose sight of is that this is all about place making and creating the right communities that folk want to live in and can be happy in. I say to members that we have about 10 minutes left for questioning. Ruth, do you want to come back on that? Andy Wightman to follow by Elaine Smith. In your response to the panel's review, you said that, as the panel have thoroughly considered the evidence, we do not intend to reopen the debate on what should be done. I wish that you could confirm that the panel made some very welcome recommendations, and the Government no doubt has some great ambitions, but ultimately it is Parliament that decides what should be done. Scottish ministers did quite a bit of work in the background of 2015, looking at the recommendations of the land reform review group on a number of issues around housing in terms of public interest-led development, majority land assembly and the working group set up. Are the outcomes of that work going to inform the work that you are taking forward here in the working groups in response to the panel? The Parliament always ultimately decides. I will bring in Mr McNearney about the working groups. We will take into account the outputs from the working groups in future legislation. The scope of the planning bill will be for consideration, certainly. In that territory, there are also commitments on improving compulsory purchase arrangements, which have been reflected in the programme for government. The Scottish Law Commission has been carrying out a review. We expect to get the analysis of responses from that in the next few weeks. We will also outline what steps we can take in the short term to enhance and make more straightforward compulsory purchase procedures. There was a lot of good work done around about six or so issues. I am not entirely clear. I know that it is not the minister's portfolio necessarily, but in practice, the issues that we are looking at are much in your territory. I am still not clear whether formally you are going to be taking that work forward into the review, but perhaps you can communicate formally by letter? I will look at the output from the working groups. Obviously, some of the stakeholders that will be at next Monday and Tuesday's events are likely to raise some of the issues that I would imagine. However, I will look at that and see what the output from that would add in terms of the development of the white paper. I will write back to the committee in some more depth about that, because I have to say that I am not entirely ofei with every aspect of those working groups. It is a supplementary issue of enforcement, so I might return to that if you do not mind. Rather than enforcement, I suppose that it is about how would you tackle or how does the process tackle the blatant avoidance of rules, if you like? I will give the example of the visual pollution of advertising boards that are later in the country. It is not just about the look of them. They could also be dangerous when they are up the sides of motorways. There are certain rules about posters that you could put at the sides of roads and motorways, but they get around it, and I presume that they get around it because they put them on what are supposedly called portable boards, but we know that they are not. They are there indefinitely. Rather than just about enforcement, is there anything in it that can look at the way that some of the rules that are there are being got round? I am certainly willing to look at anything that might be getting got round as you put it. Yes, I think that we can certainly have a look at those things. I am not entirely sure of the designation of some of those things. Maybe Mr McNair can help me in that regard. I think that you might be referring to agricultural vehicles, because there will be an exemption in the advert regs, which are quite ancient around using agricultural vehicles that can display an advert. We have not looked at the advert regulations for a very long time. There has not been any pressure to do that. If it became a priority, we would obviously do that. In the first instance, enforcement, whether it is for adverts or anything else, is down to the planning authority identifying and then addressing and removing adverts that do not have any expressed consent. I realise, convener, that we are maybe not answering in depth enough for Ms Smith in that regard, so we will send more detail on that to you too. That is very helpful. I suspect that the detail briefing that you have in front of you has been asked about advertising hoardings. It was about a curveball minister. I think that we can forgive that one, even for the depths of your knowledge. Briefings often cover a lot of bases. I am never surprised by curveballs, convener, but there is no point in me trying to give any great detail, because I do not have it, but we will write to the committee about it. That is great. Of course, in Glasgow, they have helped greatly as a planning authority, because they have banned election materials in all their street furniture. I know that the political activists in Glasgow of all parties are quite grateful for that, because we do not only have to put them up, but we have to take them down as well. I know that Benny campaign for me was always climbing up lampposts and putting up posters, so I do not agree with the community. That is definitely going off on a tangent now, minister. Can I ask one very brief question? I suspect that the answer will have to be the working groups who will look at it, but I raised it in the first session. It was just a slight concern over the development plans, which I know are set for 10 years, but they are reviewed every five years, and I appreciate the issues around them. You are just set into development planning, you have to review it again for that long-term strategy. I suppose that the concern that I have is that if you do not get the development plan right in the first place, you are locking in unsatisfactory aspects of the development plan in my own experience in Glasgow. I suspect that there is a cultural thing with planning authorities across the country. Do not make any particular issue about Glasgow. Planning authorities are not particularly good at making elected representatives never mind local communities aware of anything contentious in relation to their city or local plans. They will go through almost a very basic statutory process unless it is dangled in front of your loads, you would never know what was happening. That is sometimes the most contentious of changes to local plans. If we are to accelerate planning approvals and get more houses built in built sustainable communities, we have to move quicker on that, and we have to make sure that the development plan is fit for purpose in the first place. Given that there is an indication of reviewing development plans less often, if there will be a health check around making sure that there is robust consultation with communities and where possible co-production of some of those development plans? One of the things that has come up again and again, even before I came into this role, convener, is that people who are at the co-face of the development of these plans would say that they had no longer finished one, they were starting on the other, and we were not actually delivering anything that was in the original plan. The focus was on continuous planning, if you like, but not necessarily about delivery of what was in the plan. I would expect everyone to have health checks, as you call them, in terms of any aspect of work that they are doing. One of the key things in terms of participation from communities was, in some regards, that some of them were worn out as well by moving from the development of one on to another. Communities themselves would say why are we not seeing any change, any of the development that was proposed in the plan that we took part in, and then you get drop-off from that as well in less participation. I think that the balance that is proposed looks right. Obviously, again, this will be something that we will deal with in the workshops. Folk might have other views. There may be some good points that come out in that regard, but I think that previously it was just plan after plan after plan after plan and not a huge amount of delivery. I think that we have got to strike that balance right and ensure that tangible change can take place. I think that that is a reasonable point, minister. We have just come to the end of our time. Can I just check for clarity? I do not think that the planning bill was in the programme for government as announced by the First Minister yesterday. I did not think that it was. Can I just check what your anticipated timescales would be for any legislation coming through Parliament? Autumn 2017, convener. Before we move into private session, we have been asking all the questions. We are keen to have a constructive dialogue with the Government in relation to this. Is there anything that you want to put on the record, minister, or indeed Mr McNearney, before we close today's session? I will let Mr McNearney go first if he wants to. We would be happy to come back and give you informal updates on the progress with the review, whatever information you need or briefings that would be helpful, whether it is face-to-face or electronically. We will do all that we can to keep you up to speed as things develop. We are trying to create a more open and transparent system. In order for you to be able to scrutinise that properly, we need to be open and transparent with you as well. We will keep you updated of where we are in the process. If there is anything that the committee requires, I am more than happy to answer any of your questions. As I have said to the committee on my previous visit here, I am more than happy to come back at any point on this or any other issue. I thank the minister and Mr McNearney for his time this morning and we now move to agenda item four, which we have previously agreed to take in private. Thank you.