 I welcome everyone to the 26th meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee in 2018, and I remind everyone present to turn off their mobile phones, and as meeting papers are provided in digital format, tablets may be used by members during the meeting. Item 1, the committee has invited to consider whether to take consideration of its approach to the fuel poverty, target definition and strategy Scotland Bill at agenda item 3 in private. Are we all agreed? The next agenda item, this is day 3 of the stage 2 of the planning bill and I welcome again the Minister for Local Government and Housing, Kevin Stewart and his accompanying officials to today's meeting. Some MSPs who are not committee members but have lodged amendments to the bill will again be in attendance today and are very welcome and I welcome Daniel Johnson at this point. Some of the MSPs are not present just now but we'll be popping in later on. We move on to amendment 74 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Well, thanks very much, convener. In this group on the local development plan consultation and participation, I'm speaking to three amendments, 74, 2, 0, 1 and 77. I'm not alone in thinking that the front loading of the planning system has not been fully thought through when drafting this bill. I appreciate what the bill is attempting to do, but although the Scottish Government say that they want a more front loaded system, I don't think that they've designed one in this bill. In response to this, I've genuinely tried to be helpful. I've tabled several amendments, some in other groupings that aim to improve the front loading and public participation in the planning system. I'm working on more for stage 3 and I'm open to speaking to anyone, including the minister, about this. I'm genuinely trying to be constructive about this. Amendments 74, 2, 0, 1 work to provide specific directions as to how a planning authority must ensure that they encourage and welcome public participation. That's what these amendments are all about. We hear a lot during the written consultation period that members of the public feel ignored by the planning process. Amendment 74 is intended to provide a route where people can get more involved. However, in amendment 74, the very last line says that councils should issue a copy of the statement of the local development plan to each household in their district. Having spoken to other members and stakeholders, I am now of the view that that is too onerous on councils. I'll not be moving this amendment, but the sentiments behind it stand in that I want people to be more involved. The amendment on the same subject allows a greater degree of flexibility, so we'll be supporting that. Can you remove that amendment for the sake of the debate and you can remove it later? I'll move it. I can move all the amendments. Amendment 201 is about the Scottish Government issuing guidance on effective community engagement, the same sort of subject. That's backed by the RTPI. That one still stands, that works. Amendment 77 refers to the Central Scotland Green Network. That covers 19 council areas, so more than half the local authorities in Scotland. The amendment, if passed, would ensure that those councils have to consult the CSGN on any proposed local development plans. The CSGN is a vitally important project dedicated to protecting and enhancing the green lungs of a large part of Scotland. It's essential that it's fully involved in the planning system, in my view. The network was uncomfortable with another amendment that I'd tabled, so I've withdrawn that one. They didn't think they could work with it, but they're happy with this one. Chairman Keith Geddes told me quotes, to achieve positive outcomes in the 19 councils in our area, a fundamental building block would be that councils incorporate the principles of CSGN into their local development plans. If we're a national priority, that priority should be incorporated at a local level, close quotes. I think that makes sense. The area that I represent is also covered by Central Scotland Green Network. They do a fantastic job. I think that they should be certainly involved at that local development plan stage. I hope that the committee supports amendment 77. Monica Lennon, to speak to amendment 112 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I'll speak to 112 and all other amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 112 would put a duty on the planning authority to promote the local development plan to local residents in such a manner as they consider sufficient to ensure that it's brought to the attention of residents of the area or district to which the LDP relates. Furthermore, amendment 112 also requires the planning authority to publish a yearly statement, which sets out the steps that it has taken to promote the local development plan. The purpose of that is to strengthen early engagement in the development of the plan, put a duty on the authority to promote the plan to local residents and set out publicly how they have done so. There are, of course, different needs and requirements across different planning authorities, depending on geography, population size and so on. I believe that amendment 112 reflects the requirement for authorities to promote the LDP, but it still allows flexibility for local decisions to be taken on how best to achieve that. I welcome the comments from Graham Simpson on his amendment 74. I feel that issuing a copy of a statement to every household through the post might be unnecessary and there might be less prescriptive options available, so I'm glad that Graham Simpson won't be pressing that amendment because I wouldn't have been able to support that one. My other amendments in this group are aimed at strengthening community voices during the consultation phase of local plan preparation. Amendment 194 will introduce specific requirements for the planning authority to consider and facilitate the participation of children and young people in the preparation of the local development plan. I think that that is important because decisions that we take around planning will affect the lives of children and young people for decades to come, so it is only right that they are properly consulted. Involving children and young people should result in places that better cater for their needs long into the future and help to develop citizens who have a good understanding of what planning can achieve and why participating matters. As a minimum, my amendment references schools, youth councils and youth parliament representatives as a point of contact for consulting young people on the plan. Schools are also a mechanism by which awareness of local plan can also reach parents, families and the wider school community. The amendment also introduces a duty for the authority to publish up-to-date information about how it has gone about meeting its obligations to involve the views of children and young people in the preparation of the plan. As we all know, the UK is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Scottish Government has asserted in the most recent programme for government that it will incorporate the principles of convention into domestic law. Parament to UNCRC is recognition that children are entitled in equal parts to protection, provision and participation. I hope that the Scottish Government will take the opportunity to put its commitments on protecting the rights of children, particularly since it is a year of young people, into action in the planning bill by supporting my amendments. Amendment 118A would adjust amendment 118 to ensure that the views of children and young people will be sought during the preparation of the evidence report. Amendment 198 seeks to ensure that in preparing the evidence report, young people will be consulted and that the planning authority must consult with the general public and existing statutory consultees for planning applications. I recognise that much of the principle of 198 is similar to what the minister is trying to achieve in his amendment 118. I will support amendment 118, but I will press my own and I hope that we can achieve or reach consensus on what should be required in preparation of the evidence report for stage 3. I will not press amendment 197, because it is quite similar, but 198 includes the provision of children and young people, so I will not press in 197. Amendment 202 will give community councils and access panels the right to be consulted in the preparation of the LDP. Access panels work in their local areas to improve the built environment and promote social inclusion for disabled people, while community councils where they exist provide an additional democratic link with local communities. Consulting access panels at an early stage should result in places that are accessible for all and help to embed equality for people with disabilities into the planning process. I had a look at the briefing from Disability, Equality Scotland. Access panels are all fully quantitative members of Disability Access Scotland and are recognised by local authorities. In their briefing, they said that too often access panels are consulted too late in the process, and this leaves the knowledge and experience of the access panels as a tick box exercise. I do not think that any of us would want that to be the case. Across Scotland, consultation with access panels really does vary in terms of the quality of that, but giving access panels the right to be consulted would level the playing fields. Minister, to speak to amendment 118 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning. I will first of all speak to amendments 118 and 121 in my name, which seek to strengthen involvement in local development plans. During stage 1, the committee and many stakeholders were keen to ensure that the changes to the process of preparing local development plans should result in greater engagement. In particular with those groups in society who may not always have their voices heard. That is my aim, too. Early and effective engagement in the preparations of plans that set out the future of our places is critical to their success. I originally intended to provide more detail on this in secondary legislation and guidance. However, in response to the committee's concerns and to underline our commitment to this, I undertook to bring forward amendments so that stronger opportunities for engagement in development planning are included on the face of the bill. Amendments 118 and 119 set out specific requirements for engagement at the crucial early stages of plan preparation. Amendment 118 will require planning authorities to seek and have regard to the views of key agencies, the public at large and others as may be prescribed when preparing their evidence reports. Amendment 119 will require them to report on how they have done so and how the views expressed have been taken into account. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that gypsy travellers are properly involved in planning the future of their places. I also agree with the independent panel that children and young people need to be more actively involved in the future of their places. The report on consultation will be specifically required to cover those groups. Under amendment 118, children and young people are those aged 25. The definition of gypsy travellers is to be defined in regulations because there is not to date a definition in Scots law. We will engage with the community in establishing that definition. Monica Lennon's linked amendment 118A reflects the need to involve children and young people. While I agree with the intention, I do not consider it appropriate to specify particular groups of children and young people in primary legislation. It would be better for guidance to indicate the ways to engage with those who are not yet involved in these formal structures. I have the same difficulty with amendments 194, 198 and 202. In amendment 202, access panels are not statutory bodies and their roles and capacity differ across the country. I would hope that they would be involved with local development plans but I feel that guidance would be a better way of ensuring that each of them is engaged in the way that they find most appropriate. I am happy to have further discussion with Ms Lennon in that area of business. I cannot support amendments 197 and 198. Those appear to introduce an additional step into the preparation of the evidence report by requiring a draft report to be consulted upon. This would lead to delay and plan preparation. I want to see stakeholders playing an active part in the preparation of the evidence report rather than being consulted once it is drafted. Amendment 77 also raises concerns about the proper place for specific consultation requirements. Our general approach in planning is to specify the regulations where they can be adjusted as necessary. I fully respect and support the Central Scotland Green Network and would expect the relevant planning authorities to include its co-ordinating organisation in their consultation. However, since the CSGN partnership was replaced by the CSGN trust in March 2014, and who knows if there will be further changes to names, it would be wiser to keep such provisions in secondary legislation where they can be kept fully up-to-date. There are already a range of requirements within the 97 act relating to the publication of documents at different stages and the provision of information about consultation. Section 20b requires the publication of an annual development plan scheme, including a participation scheme that sets out when consultation is likely to take place, with whom the form will take and the steps to be taken to involve the public at large. That must be published, which may be online, and a copy must be placed in a public library. Section 20a requires similar publication of the local development plan and copies to be placed in public libraries. It must also be advertised in a local newspaper, and anyone who made representations on the proposed plan must be notified. Those are the minimum requirements, but I am also aware that authorities regularly go beyond that, especially using digital communications to good effect. I have also seen frequent electronic newsletters and council publications that cover the plan. Ms Lennon's amendment 112 duplicates the requirement to publish the development plan with less detail, and I do not believe that it adds any value. I am pleased that Mr Simpson will not be moving amendment 74, because what he proposed would have been an extremely costly exercise. Even a second-class stamp for every household is around £1.5 million, and there is no guarantee that people will read it. I would prefer to see an emphasis on the quality of engagement and the use of a wider range of techniques to inspire more people to get involved. I am more than happy to talk to Mr Simpson and others about that, because I see exactly where he is coming from, and I want to see as many people involved as possible. Amendment 201 also from Mr Simpson would support that quality engagement and would build on the national standards for community engagement, which were reviewed and updated in 2016. Specific advice for planning authorities is contained in planning advice note 3 slash 2010, published after the last week of legislation following the 2006 planning act. That would of course require refreshing, and the principles set out by Mr Simpson are ones that the Scottish Government is willing to support. I would therefore ask the committee to support Mr Simpson's amendment 201. I would ask the committee to support amendments 118, 119 and 121 in my name, the amendment that I have just mentioned 201 in the name of Mr Simpson, and to reject the other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, minister. Does any other member wish to talk in this group? In that case, Graham Simpson to wind up and press or withdraw. I think that this is pretty uncontroversial. I think that we're all on the same page. It's just about how we get there. I welcome the minister's words that he's open to have further discussions. He's disappointing. He's not backing amendment 77 relating to the central Scotland green network. Mr Simpson will take an intervention. I will. I do support the green network. As I said in my speech, convener, what I worry about in these circumstances is that if we set out something like this in primary legislation and there are name changes which there have been, that's hard to revisit. It's easier to revisit that in guidance. I am more than willing to discuss with Mr Simpson about how we can set out that guidance. I think that we may cause ourselves some difficulties if we set out certain things in primary legislation that's not easy to change if change comes from an organisation. I hear what the minister says, but my intention is to firm things up. I'll be moving that amendment today, but I'm open to have further discussions ahead of stage 3. I think I'll leave it there, convener. I don't think there's been huge disagreements here. Thank you very much. In that case, Graham Simpson seeks leave to withdraw his amendment. Does any member present object to the amendment being withdrawn? That case of amendment is withdrawn. I call Kenny Gibson to move amendment 175, already debated with amendment 86. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 110, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 86. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 7, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 86. Graham Simpson to move or not move? The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment falls. I call amendment 75, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 86. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. All those in favour? All those opposed? It falls. I call amendment 11, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 86. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Not move. I call amendment 176, in the name of Andy Wightman, already debated with amendment 86. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. Those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is carried. I call amendment 112, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 74. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Those opposed? It falls. I call amendment 193, in the name of Alec Cole-Hamilton, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out that if amendment 199 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 200 because of a preemption. Alec Cole-Hamilton to move amendment 193 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and I've moved the amendments in my name. I'm grateful to have your forbearance again as an interloper on this committee. My amendment seeks to reverse provisions in the bill to remove the main issues report. I reflected very much on your stage 1 report and in paragraph 136 of that you stated, your committee stated, we agree with witnesses that removing the main issues report could reduce the opportunities for engagement with stakeholders and communities. My party absolutely agrees with that, and on consultation with the leaders of all my council groups across Scotland, that was seen as very much a bastion for them that they wanted to protect. That speaks very much to the reasoning behind my amendments in the first hearings around stage 2 on changing the NPF and removing some of the language around the NPF to reduce the preeminence of Scottish ministers. This is about local autonomy, this is about local consultation. For my party, the main issues report represented a principal vehicle of consultation in that regard. That's why I'm moving those amendments today. Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 8 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. Three amendments here, 8, 76 and 120, which I'll move. Amendment 8 relates directly to housing. It's table to ensure the local development plan demonstrates the viability of housing sites, convener, because too often sites are zoned for housing and then nothing happens for years. We've all seen it. Amendment 8 is designed to ensure that planning authorities don't include allocations in their plans if they're not confident the development can be achieved within the plan period. It could inspire them to better consider the viability of meeting policy requirements. This would be particularly useful in respect of old sites that are reallocated in successive plans, while new sites promoted by home builders and others are subject to increasing scrutiny. The current practice favours old allocation of a new, despite track records of long delivery market and other changes. If approved and subject to refinement at stage 3, as you know, convener, I'm always up for refining amendments. This amendment could be a useful tool in supporting the plan-led system. Amendment 76 strengthens the community links so that evidence reports demonstrate the way the planning authority has engaged with the local community to prepare the local place plan. I'll say more on that in a later amendment, not in this group. I support amendment 200 in the name of Monica Lennon, which enhances community engagement. That pretty much covers it. Amendment 120 is also about the evidence report, so it's all about enhancing that report. Monica Lennon speaks to amendment 195 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 195 will require the planning authority to set out how it has consulted on the evidence report and how the views that were expressed during the consultation process have been taken into account. I'm pleased that the committee supported the retention of strategic development plans in our earlier session. My amendment 226 is intended to ensure that any authority, not within a strategic development partnership, would be required within the preparation of the evidence report to state how they have taken into account cross boundary policies and state the reasons, if any, for why they have not done so. Essentially, that puts a duty on all planning authorities to engage in regional planning, even if they are not part of a strategic authority. That recognises the value of regional planning and that it deserves dedicated resources, even if planning authorities are not part of a strategic development plan authority. I appreciate Graham Simpson's supportive comments for amendment 200. The intention behind that was to strengthen the gate check process of the evidence report to create a representative community panel to encourage positive and early community engagement in the planning process. However, I've been looking at this amendment again and I don't feel that it's satisfactory as it's currently drafted. I want to do some further deflection on that, so I won't press this amendment, convener, but we'll look at that again for stage 3. I'll be happy to speak to Graham Simpson and others about that. My final amendment in this group is 227. That is the introduction of the play sufficiency assessment. Play is vital to children's physical and mental health, as well as building social networks and a sense of community. The amendment highlights the importance of that space and will allow councils and Government to be held to account if it starts to reduce or when we can see that every child doesn't have access to space to play. The right to play is embedded in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and this amendment is therefore completely in keeping with Scottish Government commitments to incorporate these principles into domestic law. That approach has been taken already in Wales, where a duty has been placed on local authorities to assess and secure sufficient play opportunities for children. I do hope that the committee and the Government will be supportive of that. In relation to other amendments in this group, amendment 8, in the name of Graham Simpson, on the issue of viability of housing sites, I'm supportive in principle, but I'm glad that Graham Simpson recognised that there probably needs some refinement in terms of how local authorities would assess viability. The word apparent appears in amendment 2, so I think that there's some work to be done on that, but it's supportive in principle. I'm supportive of amendment 196, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which would require authorities to assess the demand for and availability of student housing. For some authorities, it's not... Is that unusual, convener? I was just rereading amendment 8 there, and the word apparent doesn't appear. Apologies, perhaps I was thinking of another amendment, but I'll look again before we vote. On student housing, it's not going to be applicable in every area, but in other areas where there are colleges or universities, I think that it will encourage some transparency over the availability of student accommodation and the need to plan for this. I know that it's been an issue recently for me in South Lanarkshire, involving the relocation of the University of West of Scotland campus. I think that Daniel Johnson's amendment would require the authority to take account of the need for student accommodation and the impact on surrounding areas within the evidence report. I think that that's useful information to have when preparing the LDP. Lastly, convener, on amendments by Alex Cole-Hamilton, those would seek to retain the main issues report, which has been replaced by the evidence report. I've proposed a number of amendments aimed at strengthening the evidence report, so I'm not able to support the amendments in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Daniel Johnson, to speak to amendment 196 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and I thank the committee for welcoming me here today in what is, I think, very important work. I can also make a brief declaration in that my wife is a practising planning lawyer. Monica Lennon has set out many of the reasons why I'm bringing forward this amendment, but if I could briefly state, student accommodation has had a huge impact on many of our towns and cities. We've seen a huge increase in the number of developments of student accommodation, and I feel that the planning process and local development plans in particular need to take account of that. In this city alone, some 20 per cent of people in this city are connected to universities, and therefore adequate provision in the planning process is hugely important. In terms of the way that my amendment would work, it's broadly similar to Graham Simpson's amendment 8, but I also think that it's important in terms of moving forward. I think that what's vitally important is that we take account of affordability, the format and massing of student accommodation. I think that this amendment makes an important progress on those points in ensuring that we have a diversity of students and that we accommodate our students adequately when they are seeking to study. Minister, to speak to amendment 119 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I cannot support amendments 193, 199 and 203 from Alex Cole-Hamilton. They appear piecemeal, they don't work on a technical level and undermine improvements to development planning. Amendment 193 looks to reinstate the monitoring report that accompanies the publication of the main issues report. We have proposed removing the requirement for the main issues report, which communities found hard to understand. No amendments seem to reinstate that. Therefore, this amendment would result in the monitoring report being published from time to time, but with no particular stage or timescale specified for doing so. Amendment 203 also appears to replace a reference to the section on the evidence report with a reference to the section on the main issues report, which, as I've already said, will no longer exist. The monitoring report summarises the evidence base for the plan, the changes since the previous plan and the impacts of it. The evidence report would replace that and go further, therefore reinstating the monitoring report simply creates duplication. Amendment 199 removes the requirement for ministers to appoint a person to assess the evidence report and for them to notify ministers and the authority if they are satisfied with the report. The independent scrutiny is important and members and stakeholders have welcomed the gate check stage in the process. On amendment 8, in the name of Graham Simpson, I recognise that development plans should have a focus on delivery and that the sites that they allocate for development should be realistic and viable. However, the amendment raises a number of issues, firstly timing. At the gate check stage, the focus will be on evidence and information to inform the plan rather than on allocating sites. The amendment may also mean that land with significant potential, for example sites that will make a significant contribution to the land supply or will support regeneration, cannot be included in the development plan, regardless of their money. The amendment would also mean that, if the site proposer cannot meet the information requirements. I am also somewhat concerned about time and cost, which could add to the process. Our recent research showed that, although more information would be helpful, it also comes at a not insignificant cost to the prospective developer. The amendment would apply to sites that may not progress to the proposed local development plan, generating increased risk for site proposers. Recognising that, the research suggested that a stage approach could help to ensure that information requirements do not disadvantage smaller developers or act as a barrier to investment. We intend to develop fuller guidance based on the research, rather than to introduce a blanket requirement. This is another example of a well-intentioned new GTE that could prove very difficult to implement without generating the unintended consequences. I would ask Mr Simpson not to move this amendment. Again, I am more than happy to have discussions around this, but there are unintended consequences here. Mr Simpson's amendment 76 is linked to a requirement that we will come to later for planning authorities to invite communities to prepare local place plans as part of the preparation of the local development plan. I want to look at that later amendment in more detail to ensure that local place plans continue to be truly community-led, but I have no objection to the requirement to report on this issue and on the assistance that they have provided community bodies. I also support amendment 120 to introduce a requirement for the full counts of a local authority to approve an evidence report before it is submitted to Scottish ministers. I believe that this would help with strengthening corporate responsibility for the plan. This would align with the proposal on the bill for the proposed plan to be signed off by the full council of a local authority. Amendment 195 is consequential on Ms Lennon's amendments 197 and 198, which we have already spoken about. Similarly, I have made points in statutory requirements for consultation with access panels. I do not support amendment 202. Ms Lennon's amendment 200 would require planning authorities to set up citizens panels to assist the appointed person to consider the evidence report. It is not clear what the role and purpose of such panels would be, and, although they may have a role to play in some circumstances, they may not in others. By making this a blanket requirement for every evidence report, this could lead to unnecessary delay. Citizens panels can also be very resource intensive, having a long lead-in time and can be very costly. By prescribing a particular method, this also overlooks the need to adopt a range of engagement techniques to reflect the needs and preferences of different stakeholders. Amendment 206 appears to introduce a new requirement for strategic planning for some planning authorities using the evidence report for local development plans, and I have a number of significant issues with that. The evidence report has an important role to play in the new process. According to the amendment, on top of setting out local evidence, it would have to set out proposals and policies for strategic and cross boundaries. It would also have to explain how that work is being done, including where, with whom and how it is resourced. I am concerned that this is out of step with the new approach to development planning, and we want the evidence report to be prepared, published and scrutinised early. We want the gate check that follows to be transparent, participative and proportionate. It is important that the evidence report is not overloaded. I am not just concerned about over-complicating the evidence report. This amendment seems to be introducing strategic development planning through the back door, with authorities outwith strategic development plan areas being relegated to a second division approach. Two-tier strategic development planning will just make the process more complicated and confusing, and I would ask the committee to reject this amendment. With regard to amendment 227 relating to play opportunities, I consider the most appropriate place to address this matter would be in policy and guidance rather than on the face of the bill. I have already been clear that we would expect the evidence report to cover infrastructure matters for the plan area. Infrastructure is broad in meaning, but it includes green infrastructure and the definition of which in the Scottish planning policy includes play spaces. Therefore, do not support this amendment. Daniel Johnson's amendment 196 requires the evidence report to identify the demand for and availability of student housing accommodation. Whilst I wholly agree that housing is a key matter for the evidence report to consider, I do not think that it is appropriate to include a reference to one specific area of specialist housing. I have set out the requirements to consider a range of specialist housing, and student accommodation is included in that. Officials have been working with a small number of stakeholders to consider how the evidence report could work in practice. I expect that there will be broader interest in this and wider views on what the evidence report should contain. Therefore, I consider that it would be more appropriate for there to be further debate on this when we come to more detailed regulations and guidance. This is provided for within the bill in new section 16A2B. Finally, I will explain amendment 119 in my name, convener. I want to see a statement in the evidence report itself, reporting on the steps taken to seek views and engage with people and the extent to which they have been taken into account. Amendment 119 introduces that requirement. It also identifies the need for the statement to specifically address how gypsy travellers and children and young people have been involved. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that gypsy travellers are properly involved in planning in the future of their places, like everyone else. We also agree with the independent panel that children and young people need to be more actively involved in the future of their places. Those focused amendments will address the issues that emerged during stage 1 and ensure that the evidence report is prepared on the basis of meaningful and inclusive collaboration. I therefore ask the committee to support amendment 119. Thank you very much, minister. It's amazing how quickly, finally, has become my favourite word. Andy, you wanted to speak. Thank you, convener, just a few words. I agree with the minister on the amendments in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. The committee, while expressing concern that the main issues report could reduce opportunities, did go on to say that we consider, however, that the new evidence report and gate check provides a mechanism to address those concerns. So long as we reject the main issues report and put an evidence report in, it seems that a piecemeal approach to put some of the main issues report amendments back in is not appropriate. I have some problems with this. I think that it's a well-intentioned amendment, but the demonstration of viability is a very difficult thing for planning authorities to do when viability can relate to issues to do with land ownership, infrastructure, the actions of other parties, etc. I would be keen to discuss that with Graham Simpson between now and stage 3 to see if we can get something improved. In the meantime, my judgment is that it would be better not to have that in the bill, but I am very happy to have something that is similar to it at the end on Daniel Johnson's amendment. I thank Andy Wightman and, indeed, the minister for the comments on this amendment, and I have reflected on them while you have been speaking. I will take up the minister's offer of discussions on this and I will not be moving this particular amendment. I thank Graham Simpson for his amendment and his intervention. On 1-96, Daniel Johnson is on student housing. I think that this is a very, very important issue. I do think that it's appropriate for this to be addressed in the bill. However, I don't think that the wording is correct. Instead of student housing accommodation, it might be better that it's housing accommodation for students that would make it clear that it's further on higher education students and not students in primary and secondary education. However, I am happy to support that and get that in the bill on the basis that the member agrees to have some further discussions about the wording. On 1-226, we are in a difficult place here because I think that there are still discussions to be had about what we do about strategic development plans. As I argued last week or the week before, we are not persuaded that we should get rid of them, but neither are we persuaded that they are the best solution to strategic development planning. While that would introduce a sort of twin track and it's perhaps not in the best place, I think that I will be supporting this on the basis that we must have this conversation between now and stage 3 to thrash out what we are doing about strategic development planning. In that case, I ask Alex Cole-Hamilton to wind up. Thank you, convener. Both the minister and Andy Wightman referred to my attempts to preserve the main issues report as piecemeal, and I would like to think of it more as surgical rather than nuclear. I think that the alternative would have been to remove the entire section. I think that there is still an important point here to be made about consultation of communities. I am going to press this amendment in the hope of going down 7-0 again, but there you go. Thank you very much, and I admire your confidence. The question here for us is that amendment 193 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The amendment falls. Sorry, okay. Anybody? No. Everybody is opposed to it. Thank you. Show of hands, please. Show of hands. Okay. Alex Cole-Hamilton, I want for the record that this was not my suggestion that we keep on robbing this into you. The amendment has fallen 7-0. I call amendment 194 in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 74. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 194 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 118 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 74. Minister to move formally. Moved. Thank you. I call amendment 118A in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 74. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 118A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment is agreed to. The minister to press or withdraw amendment 118. Press. Thank you. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The amendment is agreed to. 7-0. Is there anybody who's opposed? I've got acclamation. I've got acclamation. Okay. I've got a new phrase. I call amendment 8 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 193. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. Thank you. I call amendment 76 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 193. Graham Simpson to move or not move? Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. The agreed by acclamation. I call amendment 195 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 193. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 195 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Yes. Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment is agreed. Four, three. Okay. I call amendment 196 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 193. Daniel Johnson to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Yes. Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment is agreed to. I know Cymruill. peninsula byd nid angen i'i f congrat i'n niad i'w Grim Simpson a wlad maen nhw i'n niad i bar certified 193 u eicharydd fel amept eich r 라id y mybl, nid weithiad? Eukrydy Jacobiach – I am niad i moi ni bydd nid eich rlaid i'w ym ос gripad y myblар praised i niad o dge sipi.ọ Spr wycharged i 197 i ymlaen ni'w Monica Lennon, yn niad i phest o mions of pareloff i Fân fed y maen nhw wedi uned i'w moïn ar y f negó. Dechakw 됐d! Cwrnodd dweill nawr. Cwrnodd dweill nawr. Maen nhw'r gynhyrchu, mae'r ddwell iawn os yn communities tdадиться. Wrath yr effeithfyrdd nu yn τηermu facilwyr ar 70! Rhaid a lefnodol yn Socifenwch. The The question is... Amendment 226, if needed. Ad jogar forth. Are we agreed? flawless Those in favor Those opposed Act 226,C Whoo Are we agreed? Rhowa qualifus ganddorol Jetzt younw gwrs- Caer cords in the name of and New England or any down veure with amendment 193 monica elasticity novel再not not moveigare with amendment 212 one to one name of the Minister already debated with amendments 74 are minister to move Eduardo we can be there the question is the temperament one to one be agreed to are the list 2.0.1 yn y name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 74. Graham Simpson, to move or not? Move. Thank you. The question is at amendment 201, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Agreed by acclamation, like call amendment 227, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 193. Monica Lennon, to move or not? Move. The question is at amendment 227, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour, 227, 4, those opposed, 3, amendment 227, is agreed to, 4, 3. Call amendment 202, in the name of Monica Lennon, already debated with amendment 74. Monica Lennon, to move or not? Move. The question is at amendment 202, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour, 4, those opposed, 3, 202, is agreed, 4, 3. The question is at amendment 77, in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 74. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? Move. The question is at amendment 77, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour, those opposed, the amendment is agreed, 4, 3. Call amendment 9, in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments shown in the groupings. Graham, to move amendment 9, and speak to all amendments in the group. Down with me, convener. This is going to be a very, very quick convener, because it's ridiculously simple. Amendment 9, really, all this does is increases the time frame for representations on a proposed local development plan from 8 to 12 weeks. That obviously gives public more time to engage with and fully understand the plan. I would have thought that that was what we would all want. That's all I need to say on that one. Thank you very much then. Minister, to speak to amendment 122 and other amendments in the group, and please feel free to take Mr Simpson as your example. Thank you, convener. It might take a little bit longer than Mr Simpson. Mr Simpson's amendment 9 proposes increasing the period for representations on the proposed plan. It's currently six weeks. The bill has extended it to eight weeks, and Graham Simpson proposes extending it to 12 weeks. I'm content to support this amendment, although on its own it will have limited effect. I hope that we can all agree that the quality of engagement is the most important thing. To stimulate community-led engagement and to encourage innovative and creative approaches to involving a wider range of people in the planning process. I hope that planning authorities will use that additional time to deepen engagement rather than just lengthen it. Amendment 127 relates to the participation statement within the development plan scheme. The need to prepare a development plan scheme is an existing requirement. It sets out the planning authority's programme for preparing and reviewing their plan. It must include a participation statement that sets out when consultation is likely to take place, with whom it's likely form and the steps to be taken to involve the public at large. My amendment will mean that when a planning authority is preparing their development plan scheme, it must first talk to people about how they can best engage with them. That will improve the effectiveness of engagement and allow authorities to tailor their approach so that a wider range of people get involved. This is a key part of good practice engagement, which would expect planning authorities to follow anyway, but the amendment makes it explicit. I come to amendments 122 to 126 and amendment 153, in my name. During stage 1, the planning bill was described as centralising. I, of course, disagree with that view, convener. However, the committee's views led the Scottish Government to look again at the balance of powers within the legislation and for opportunities to further strengthen local accountability for planning. In doing so, I revisited the report of the independent planning review panel and our subsequent consultation. Whilst the panel proposes removing plan examinations, our consultation showed a great deal of support for the independent scrutiny that they provide. We sought to move part of the scrutiny to an earlier stage and introduce the concept of a development plan gate check. The debate at stage 1 has given us an opportunity to explore more radical options that could deliver on the panel's and the committee's aspirations for stronger local ownership and responsibility for local development plans. As a result, I proposed amendments that remove the ability of the Scottish ministers to intervene in local development plans at the end of the plan preparation process prior to their adoption. The amendments are a collection of detailed and technical changes, while some remove existing requirements to notify ministers—for example, the changes made by amendment 124 to remove section 1912 of the 1997 act—and some remove ministers' existing abilities to intervene prior to adoption, for example, amendment 125. Others deal with the consequences of the changes to publication and notification arrangements at the end of the process and ensure that requirements are not duplicated. However, I will focus my time today on the reasons for making those amendments. Currently, there is a period of 28 days for Scottish ministers to consider the local development plan before it can be adopted by a planning authority. If, during this time, ministers find the plan to be unsatisfactory, they can direct the authority to consider modifying the plan. Those amendments mean that this consideration period will be removed and that, following the independent examination of the plan, there will be no intervention in the process by ministers. The bill has introduced included measures to ensure that timescales and powers for ministers to make directions where adequate and arrangements were unequivocal. However, in view of the strength of views expressed and to show my commitment to subsidiarity, I have reconsidered this. As the name suggests, these are local development plans. They address local planning matters for local people. They are prepared by local planning officials and adopted by locally elected members. It is therefore appropriate that, after a comprehensive process of preparation and independent scrutiny, the ultimate decisions on the local development plan rest with the local authority. Those amendments align with wider objectives to streamline and frontload the development plan process, as well as to use resources effectively. They will shorten the adoption timescale of a local development plan by removing the 28-day consideration period. The Scottish Government regularly receives correspondence calling for ministers to change local development plans at the very end of the process. There is no statutory provision for this, and the amendments will remove any expectation that changes should be made by ministers after the examination has concluded. The amendments will further support frontloading the planning system and, instead of having oversight at the end of the process, we have already proposed enhanced scrutiny at the gate check stage. They will also enable Government resources to focus on where they can support the wider process proactively, rather than in a reactive way. Time can be redirected to contributing to local development plans at an earlier stage, and undertaking engagement and collaborative working to inform the new national planning framework. Therefore, I encourage you to support those amendments as a sensible approach to preparing plans that leave the responsibility for local development plans squarely in the hands of local authorities. Thank you very much, minister. I have to say a welcome very strongly the words of the minister and his amendments, which seem to me to bring to this bill less centralisation. I realise that the minister does not accept that he has been centralising. However, his amendments appear to contradict that. They are to be welcomed. He has given a commitment to subsidiarity. That is to be welcomed. No intervention by ministers. That is to be welcomed. This is all going in the direction that the committee wanted the bill to go. Those amendments are to be supported without a doubt. I am glad to hear that he is supporting my amendment 9. Thank you very much. The ticket you will be pressing on with Drone. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Passed by acclamation. Call amendments 1-2-2, 1-2-3, 1-2-4, 1-2-5, 1-2-6 and 1-2-7, all in name of the minister and all previously debated with amendment 9. I invite ministers to move amendments 1-2-2 to 1-2-7 on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 1-2-2 to 1-2-7? In that case, the question is that amendments 1-2-2 to 1-2-7 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. Passed by acclamation. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Call amendment 66, in the name of Andy Wightman. Groups with amendments are shown in the grouping. Andy Wightman to move amendment 66 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Section 4 of the bill repeals section 22 of the 97 act. Section 22 of the 97 act provides that planning authorities may adopt and issue statutory supplementary guidance in relation to strategic development plans and local development plans. As the stage 1 report noted, the committee remains to be convinced that getting rid of such guidance will simplify local development plans and improve scrutiny and accessibility. A range of planning authorities told us that they found the ability to publish such guidance a useful part of their planning functions, with Edinburgh, for example, highlighting that it enabled them to respond quickly and transparently to changing circumstances. South Lanarkshire too highlighted their ability to adopt guidance on things like minerals and offshore wind. Convener, this is another part of the bill where the status quo may have defects, but we are not persuaded that they can be resolved by getting rid of the provisions in their entirety. Amendment 66 deletes section 4 of the bill and thus restores the status quo. I move amendment 66 in my name. Amendment 67 restores the strategic development plan as part of the development plan as defined by section 24 of the 97 act. Amendment 68 restores the language of section 24 of the 97 act in relation to the approval of the plan by the planning authority or Scottish ministers and in relation to supplementary guidance. Amendment 69 and 70 are consequential. There are significant issues raised in this group of amendments, which could have a dramatic and damaging effect on the reform of our planning system. I will address amendment 66, 69 and 70. There appears to have been some confusion among stakeholders about the removal of supplementary guidance. I remind the committee that the bill is seeking to remove statutory supplementary guidance, which is currently adopted under section 221 of the 1997 act, so that it no longer forms part of the development plan. Authorities would still be able to bring forward guidance on matters relating to the planning system as they see fit, but while that guidance may be a material consideration in decision making, it would not form part of the development plan. There are very good reasons for removing statutory supplementary guidance from forming part of the development plan. It is adding to not reducing the complexity of development plans. Planning authorities appear to be using it to adopt significant policies that have the full weight of the development plan behind them, but without the rigor, engagement and independent scrutiny that is vital in producing a development plan. Crucially, I would question the transparency of statutory supplementary guidance. The way that it is used means that big issues—issues in which developers and communities have a significant interest—have only limited consultation and no independent scrutiny. It also confuses people as key policies can be spread across several individual documents, which are published at different times. We have clear evidence that supplementary guidance is being overused. Earlier this year, my officials established that there are at least 342 separate pieces of statutory guidance that are referred to in development plans across Scotland. Around 12,000 extra pages are added to the statutory development plan. The number of per authority ranges from 0 to 38, and this length and inconsistency is not helpful. As the independent panel recommended, it would be much easier if all local development plan policies and proposals were in one place. Supplementary guidance generates duplication. At present, many supplementary guidance documents are used to repeat national planning policy. This will not be necessary if the national planning framework incorporating Scottish planning policy forms part of the development plan. There are further technical difficulties. Planning authorities have used it to add further policies either at the time a plan is prepared or afterwards. However, when they adopt a new local development plan, all existing supplementary guidance falls, leaving a policy vacuum until they are replaced. I understand that environmental organisations have concerns that removing supplementary guidance would result in a loss of environmental policies. I would argue the opposite. Rather than leaving a significant policy, for example, on green space or wind energy, to a separate document, those issues would instead be addressed up-front in the local development plan. Supplementary guidance adds to the complexity of the planning system and it lacks rigor and transparency. That is why the bill seeks to remove those provisions. Therefore, I ask the committee to reject amendments 66, 69 and 70. I turn now to amendments 67 and 68. I have already set out my concerns about maintaining strategic development plans and I have agreed that we can have further conversation on that issue. For the reasons that I have explained, we need to remove statutory supplementary guidance in the interests of removing complexity and improving the transparency of development planning. Therefore, I must strongly resist the insertion of these additional documents into the definition of the development plan, as proposed by the two amendments. Once more, I would ask the committee to take the bill as an opportunity to make development plans and the planning system as a whole much simpler and easier for everyone to understand. I cannot support amendments that would not only miss this opportunity but would make the system even more complicated than it is now. Finally, I turn briefly to the amendments in my own name, convener, which are technical but important to the effectiveness of the system. Amendments 131, 132 and 133 deal with the effective date of provisions of the national planning framework and local development plans. That makes it clear that if a provision of one part of the development plan is inconsistent with another, the later provision is to prevail. That will be of particular relevance where one document is amended at a later date to the other. Those new arrangements would help development planning to move forward rather than look back to outdated documents. Amendments 134, 135 and 136 make minor changes to provisions for legal challenge to the national planning framework, recognising the provision for it to be amended and the arrangements for publication of an amended framework. However, amendment 133 and amendments 135 and 136 make reference to sections that would have been inserted by amendment 116. Since that amendment was not passed, I will not move those amendments today, but I intend to bring forward equivalent amendments at stage 3 with the appropriate references. I listened carefully to what the ministers had to say, and I appreciate that, perhaps for the first time, putting on record in a rather more clear exposition of the reasons why the bill does what it does. This is an area where there is some confusion. I think that what he said in my mind certainly clarifies matters and clarifies the ministers' intentions in that regard. I would still like to have further conversations around this, because there is not uniformity of view about it, but in the spirit of good will, I will not be pressing amendments 66, 69 and 70. Amendment 67 and 68 I will be pressing amendment 67. It is consistent with the approach that the committee has taken to date in relation to the retention of strategic development plans, although I am aware that it contains a provision around supplementary guidance that is not consistent with my not pressing the other ones. However, given that we are going to have to tidy up strategic development planning and what we are doing, that can be dealt with at stage 3. I will not be pressing amendment 68, amendment 69 and 70, come later. Frankly, I cannot remember in schedule 2 what they relate to, but we will deal with that when we get to the vote in several weeks' time. Thank you, convener. Andy Wightman has six leaves to withdraw his amendment 66. Does any member present object to the amendment being withdrawn? In that case, the amendment is withdrawn. Question is that section 4 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? It is a yes by acclamation. I think that this is probably a good place to stop for five minutes or so for a comfort break. Back as soon as we can, please. I call amendment 10 in the name of Graham Simpson and a group on its own, Graham Simpson, to move and speak to amendment 10. Convener, this will be really quick. The table amendment 10 in the mistaken belief probably because of legal ease and my lack of expertise of legal ease that this could apply to named individuals. I am assured that it does not apply to named individuals and it would merely apply to office holders, so I will not be moving the amendment. The question is that section 5 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 128 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 185. Oh, the question is that section 6 will be agreed to. My apologies, minister. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 128 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 185. I call amendment 41 in the name of Graham Simpson, already debated with amendment 185. Graham Simpson, to move or not move? The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour, Graham seemed a bit unsure. Those opposed. The amendment has been passed for three. I call amendment 11 in the name of Graham Simpson, grouped with amendments 28, 130 and 29. Graham Simpson, to move 11 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks again, convener. I will speak a bit longer on this one. This is about amending the local development plan, so I am speaking to one amendment. That is amendment number 11. This says that a planning authority must amend a local development plan constituted for their district if it becomes apparent that insufficient supply of land is available for housing. It may sound a bit top down on the face of it, convener, but it is absolutely vital, especially when we are going to move to a 10-year cycle that councils keep development plans up to date. Recent plan examinations have found significant shortfalls in areas such as Edinburgh, Fife and Glasgow. My amendment would help to address this, and this is important for councils because they are often challenged on this area. I do not want to see that. None of us wants to see that. I think that by keeping things up to date, they keep themselves safe. The planning bill must address this issue, the issue of building far-to-homes. An LDP must be updated in the event of a housing supply shortfall. This will best support a plan-led system, which we all want, and the role of the LDP in managing sustainable growth and the benefits that flow from it. It is about keeping things up to date, and preventing challenges to councils from developers. That explains it, and that is it. Daniel Johnson, to speak to amendment 28 and other amendments in the group. My amendments 28 and 29 are aimed at a similar fundamental point that Graham Simpson has outlined in terms of if we are moving to a 10-year cycle. It is vitally important that the local development plan is able to be updated. I think that that is particularly true when you are talking about large publicly owned sites. This is drawn from direct experience in my constituency, where we have seen three major sites, all within a quick succession of years being put up for sale, the community having to mount large, vocal campaigns all seemingly to very little effect. What I think needs to happen is that early consultation must be facilitated so that people have a stake up front prior to sale when large public sites are sold. I think that this is important for two reasons. One, because we are talking about the scale of the sites, and secondly, because when it is publicly owned sites, people feel that they have a stake and ownership. Frankly, we are talking about sites that are very much cherished parts of the community and the development of which can frequently radically change the nature and character of our community, which is why I think that this is important. If you look at one of the example of the sick kids, if you look at the local plan as it stands, it says that it is a hospital. The brutal bottom line is that people do not expect these large sites to change in terms of their purpose. That is why those amendments have been brought forward. What my proposal seeks to do is that, when planning authorities become aware of a proposal to sell land, they then engage in a consultation process that would seek to update the local development plan so that the plan, given the change in circumstances, reflects local need. Furthermore, I have sought to clarify and state a robust consultation process. It is not just that consultation that would be required, but that consultation would need to be explicitly reflected in the update. Finally, I have sought to clarify this in terms of it being focused on major sites that draw on the town and country planning hierarchy of development, Scotland regulations 2009, but obviously adding the public element. I understand that, in terms of my conversations that I have had informally, there are some concerns as to what would be implied given the stipulation of my amendment subsection 2 pertaining to when a local authority becomes aware. I would like to draw members' attention to subsection 3, which requires ministers to issue guidance about how public bodies would be required to inform local authorities if they are intending to sell that site. What that does is to avoid the possibility of, essentially, either through circumstance or, indeed, through intent, that public bodies may conceal their intention to sell so that they can obtain planning permission before the update of plan. I think that the requirement for regulations would ensure that we have a process that prevents that. Likewise, the specific requirements in terms of the consultation update, again, I put in my amendments the requirement for ministers to issue specific guidance around that so that the specific and technical requirements can be thought more clearly. I would just like to point out to members that I have also, in amendment 29, stipulated that that should be by affirmative procedure, because I do think that the nature of how both of these elements are conducted is of vital importance. Finally, I would just like to conclude by saying that development of large public, the owned sites, is hugely controversial. I think that this amendment is important in principle. I think that it would have hugely beneficial practical impacts. I would also like to point out that having a strong definition of consultation in the bill would be useful and potentially useful elsewhere. I move the amendment to my name. Minister, would you like to speak to amendment 130 and other amendments in the group? Thank you very much, convener. First of all, with regard to Graham Simpson's amendment 11, I would agree with the aim of this amendment and expect to bring forward guidance that will explain in more detail the range of circumstances that could trigger a review of a local development plan. Our working groups discussed this and suggested and included a significant change in local economic circumstances, a shortfall in the number of homes being delivered, or where a local plan emerges. That was set out in our technical paper in December 2017. However, I believe that it would be more useful to look at those triggers in the round rather than to elevate one overall of the others. In particular, I believe that amendment 11 could lead to perpetual review of local development plans where the matter of housing land is in dispute and review is required in every case. Planning authorities could easily be caught up in continually justifying their land supply if plan amendments were to be required in all cases as a matter of law. Rather, it is important that local authorities are able to use their judgment and consider the evidence more fully in determining when the time is right to bring forward plan amendments. With regard to amendment 28, I should say first of all that members should realise that planning cannot stop or delay sites being sold. I am not convinced that amendment 28 covers a planning issue. Public sites may change ownership without generating a planning issue. Like many other amendments that we have discussed today, that would add significant administrative duties to planning authorities without necessarily having any relevance to the question of future development. Where change of use that constitutes development arises, the public body would need to engage with planning when they submit a planning application and meet any associated requirements for consultation at that stage. In any case, local authorities must be able to use their judgment and consider the evidence more fully in determining when the time is right to bring forward plan amendments in their areas. Setting out the triggers and guidance for reviewing local development plans would allow for further consultation with stakeholders on the different circumstances that are relevant and how they are defined. It would also enable us to revisit and update those circumstances if practice requires. I therefore ask the committee not to support the amendments in this group. Amendment 130 of my own was consequential on amendment 116, which was not agreed, so I will not be moving amendment 130. I have two members who would like to make a brief intervention at Monica Lennon. I just wanted to clarify some earlier remarks that I made because I got ahead of myself. I mentioned in the earlier session on main issues in evidence support one of Graham Simpson's amendments number eight, and I talked about some of the language around a parent. I was actually thinking about number 11, which is in front of us just now. I think that the discussion we have just heard—again, I am supportive of it in principle—but the guidance would be important, because I think that we would have to be clear what should trigger. If we are asking the planning authority to do something that they must amend, I think that we would have to be really clear about the criteria that we have in mind. Daniel Johnson's amendment number 20A supports that. I think that with the major sites that come forward, particularly where they are in public ownership—I am thinking about hospitals in particular, I know that that is a topical issue in Lanarkshire—I think that Daniel has made quite a good case for his amendment. In general, in terms of the lifetime of the local development plans, 10 years can be very short, but it can also be quite a long time. I know that the minister is very keen to keep local place plans in the bill as well. We have asked those questions before about what would happen in an area if a number of local place plans come forward. What does that mean for the local development plan? Could that also trigger an update to the plan? I think that we have some wider issues still to consider. On amendment 11, I accept the principle, but I think that we need some further clarification on what exactly we are asking the planning authorities to take responsibility for. In amendment 11, I understand the sentiments behind this, but I am rather concerned about getting something into legislation at this stage that talks about apparent and insufficient supply. That is wide open to interpretation and dispute and triggers an amendment to the local development plan on that basis. I would be very happy to talk to the member about how and, indeed, the minister about how we might do this, but I feel uncomfortable supporting it at this stage. On amendment 28, I support the spirit behind this. I think that we have large sites that are not anticipated to be changing in any way, and then suddenly they do, and often it would be appropriate to have a more fundamental look at how that land should be used in the future. However, as the minister has said, this does engage questions about considering proposals where planning authorities become aware that bodies are intending or considering a proposal for sale, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the planning system. The regulations that are also proposed would not cover big public authorities such as the Ministry of Defence, not being a Scottish public authority and yet the Ministry of Defence, as we know, has a programme of land disposal, some of which are very large in Lothian and other parts of Scotland. There is also a potential conflict, because there is no provision made as to what happens if the owner of one of those sites, or indeed anybody, submits a planning application under the existing local development plan, and how one would retrospectively amend the plan. There is not really a good fit there. I do think that we need to do something in this area, and I commend Daniel Johnson for the work that he has undertaken. I think that a lot of this could form part of an amendment at stage 3, but I am just not minded to support it at this stage, because I think that it needs some substantial work, and that is better done from a blank sheet than from the amendment of a large amendment. Graham Simpson, to wind up with the press of the throttles. Yes, thank you very much. Once again, I have reflected on what people have said, particularly the Minister on amendment 11. He seems to accept the principle behind the amendment, but he believes that it would be better dealt with in guidance, and I think that he is probably right on that, convener. There are words in the amendment that are open to interpretation, the word apparent and the word insufficient. How do you prove that? I am someone who likes precision in language, and I am afraid that this is not all that precise. I will not be moving that amendment, but I welcome the Minister's commitment to having further discussions. On Daniel Johnson's amendment 28, I see where he is coming from, but I tend to agree with the Minister on this that it is not for planning, but I think that he should perhaps revisit it for stage 3 and have discussions with people. You did officially move it earlier, so you are now seeking to withdraw it. I will withdraw it. Graham Simpson seeks to leave to withdraw his amendment. Does any member present object to the amendment being withdrawn? The amendment is therefore withdrawn. I call amendment 55, in the name of Alexander Stewart, group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I would point out the following pre-emptions. Amendment 56 is pre-empted by amendment 93 in group simplified development zones procedure. Amendment 57 is pre-empted by amendment 95 in group simplified development zones procedure. Amendment 150 pre-empts amendments 62 and 63 in group. Alexander Stewart will move amendment 55 and speak to all amendments in the group. I am happy to move amendment 55 and speak to the other amendments in the group. That provides that Scottish ministers make a direct planning authority to exercise their power to amend a local development plan for their districts in relation to the matter specific with the direction. The bill does not currently include a requirement for a publication of directions given by Scottish ministers to the planning authority under the section. The amendment inserts the requirement of the publication to be given. By inserting that requirement, it ensures that the publication is increased accountability and the direction taken by Scottish ministers. In amendment 56, the section contains specified in development zones. Under the provision of Scottish ministers, it may at any time direct a planning authority to make a scheme or to alter a scheme in such terms as Scottish ministers consider appropriate. The amendment inserts the requirement for the publication. As per amendment 55, it would increase accountability. Amendment 57, under the provision of the Scottish ministers, gives a calling in direction to the planning authority in relation to the authority's proposal for making an alternative scheme. As per amendment 55 and 56, it would once again introduce increased accountability. Section 61, the section concerns powers for transfer functions from a planning authority who are unable to exercise their functions as a result of provision under section 24. Under provision, the Scottish ministers may issue a direction allowing for the functions of a planning authority to be exercised by another planning authority or by Scottish ministers on the planning authority's behalf. As per amendment 55 to 57, it will increase accountability. That is arguably particularly significant as functions can be transferred by a direction given by Scottish ministers to Scottish ministers themselves. Section 62, the section concerns amendment in respect of performance planning authority's functions. Directions can be issued in certain circumstances that planning authorities by Scottish ministers require the authority to take such action as is specified in the direction concerning recommendations for a performance assessment report by Scottish ministers, and they may vary or revoke such directions. The amendment clarifies the situation and it must be in writing. The requirements for the decision to be in writing ensures that publications can take place in written form while the amendment provides some degree of flexibility by leaving the decisions and the direction of the manner in which Scottish ministers may wish to travel. Section 62 follows on, so we are on to section 63. The amendment clarifies that the direction and verification or revocation of the direction under the section must be published as soon as reasonably practical after it is given. That will help the publication and intimely, and that direction having been taken, therefore, allowing scrutiny of the decisions and the direction at an appropriate time. I move the amendments to my name. Thank you very much. The minister to speak to amendment 148 and other amendments in the group. This group of amendments responds to the request from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that there should be a statutory requirement for ministerial directions to be published, and to include the reasons for making the direction. The committee limited itself to addressing new direction making powers introduced by the bill. However, there are other direction making powers already in the 1997 act, and I feel that it is more appropriate that they should all be handled in the same way. Amendment 151 therefore inserts a provision that applies to all directions made under the 1997 act. It requires the Scottish ministers to publish the direction and their reasons for making it and clarifies that publication is to include by-electronic means. Amendments 148, 149 and 150 tidy up some other parts of the act to make sure that the requirements are all consistent. I should explain the exception to the requirement relating to section 265A. That allows the Scottish ministers, or the Secretary of State, to direct the evidence in a planning inquiry that may only be heard or inspected by specified persons if it relates to national security or the security arrangements for any premises or property, and disclosing it in a public inquiry would be contrary to the national interest. It follows that the direction describing such evidence should not be required to be published. I appreciate Alexander Stewart's efforts to implement the Delegated Powers Committee proposal. However, I suggest that the amendments in my name are a little more comprehensive, and I hope that he will not press amendment 55 and not move his other amendments in this group. I would ask the committee to accept the amendments in my name. I thank the minister for his comments. I note what you are saying, minister, and I think that you may have some valid points in the process. Therefore, I would not press. Alexander Stewart seeks leave to withdraw his amendment. Does any member present object to the amendment being withdrawn? I call amendment 177 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Minister, to move amendment 177, we have got 12 amendments in the groupings. Thank you very much, convener, and if you just give me a few seconds, because I have a bit behind in the old paperwork here. The bill is introduced would have required planning authorities to have regard to local place plans when preparing or amending local development plans. In line with the commitment that I made at stage 1, amendments 129, 177, 137 and 138 will replace the requirement to have regard to local place plans with a requirement to take them into account. My commitment to bringing forward such amendments was welcomed by the committee in its stage 1 report, and so I trust that the committee will welcome those amendments at this stage 2. I also committed at stage 1 to consider amendments that would help to clarify our expectations of planning authorities in dealing with local place plans. Concern was raised that the bill as introduced would not require a planning authority to respond in any way when a local place plan was submitted. Amendment 139 is intended to address that concern. The amendment requires planning authorities to maintain a register of local place plans, and when a valid local place plan is submitted to it, a planning authority must place the plan on the register and tell the community body that it has been registered. If the planning authority considers the local place plan is not valid and so does not register it, the authority must advise the community body of their reasons. This will give community bodies the information that they need to correct any problems in order to get an invalid proposal up to standard. The Scottish ministers will have powers by regulations to make further provision about the register of local place plans. That includes power to prescribe the form and content of the register. The regulations can also provide for when a local place plan may or must be removed from the register. The regulations can also provide for when a local place plan—sorry, convener—a bigger pardon. I will repeat that again. The regulations can also provide for when a local place plan may or must be removed from the register, allowing for them to expire, otherwise they would continue in effect indefinitely, even after the same community body had prepared a new plan. Providing a register of local place plans for a local authority area with a map of the area as the plan covers may also assist community bodies in defining the boundaries of their local place plans so that they do not overlap and provide potential developers with a source of information on the community's aspirations for its future development. Amendments 178, 179 and 180 are technical adjustments made in consequence of amendment 139 adjustments. I can see that Mr Simpson's amendment 78 has similar aims in terms of linking planning authorities to the preparation of local place plans. I agree that it would be helpful when a planning authority is starting to prepare its local development plan to let communities know when local place plans would need to be ready in order to be included. Likewise, information on the assistance available to communities from planning authorities should be widely advertised. As drafted, I am concerned that this amendment could imply local authorities should actively steer the preparation of local place plans and set criteria and deadlines for them. Our intention is that communities lead the development of local place plans, working with rather than two local authorities. I agree that local authorities could and probably should prioritise areas for supporting local place plans, but communities in other areas should still be able to bring forward their plans if they want to in their own way and in their own time. I will support amendment 78, but I want to look carefully at the wording before stage 3 to ensure that communities retain that preeminent role. I am more than happy to have further conversations with Mr Simpson and others around that. I now turn to Ms Lennon's amendments 204, 205 and 206. I believe that those must understand the role of local place plans. They are not simply a request to amend the local development plan, they will be a recognised expression of a community's own ambition for its place and will have the status of material considerations in the planning system, even before they are considered for inclusion in the local development plan. Amendment 204 would prevent communities from bringing forward local place plans until at least five years after the local development plan is adopted. Since there is no restriction on when local development plans can be amended for other reasons, I see no justification for limiting communities in this way. Communities already prepare things that look a lot like local place plans, and they do so when something inspires them. That plan should not have to sit on a shelf for five years before it can be recognised. Reflecting the local development plan and its vision will be an important element of the preparation of a local place plan. However, the bill already requires them to have regard to the local development plan. I am not convinced that a separate requirement to set out why it should be amended is helpful. Local councillors may act as important intermediaries for community bodies as they seek to prepare or garner support for their local place plans. Again, it is the community's plan, and I do not believe that the views of councillors should have such a prominent status in that process. Finally, I turn to amendment 87. I am a bit disappointed that Mr Wightman has brought forward this amendment. In its stage 1 report, the committee welcomed the statutory underpinning of local place plans as proposed in the bill. I will not rehearse the full debate on local place plans, but I would like to remind the committee of their intended benefits. The provisions were introduced to ensure that the plans that communities were already preparing could have a statutory underpinning. There has been widespread support for this, with many communities and individuals supporting the independent panel's original recommendation. The independent panel were of the view that this could make a big difference in the way in which people engage with the planning system. I agree that local place plans could play a significant role in not just front-loading engagement, but in securing full and positive involvement in planning, from a wider range of people that currently engage and, of course, at an earlier stage than is currently the case. We have brought forward other measures to improve engagement and development planning. However, local place plans are perhaps the greatest potential to bring the planning system in step with community empowerment in Scotland. There is a need for planning authorities to change the way that they engage with their communities. Local place plans will provide the maximum opportunity for people to put forward their own ideas for planning, rather than simply responding to proposals that are put forward by planning authorities. We are all aware of communities that have already led the preparation of plans setting out the vision for their areas. I met a number of them over the summer, and they have shown great creativity and skills in doing so. Others will need more help, and I recognise that local place plans should provide opportunities for all communities, not just those who already have access to skills and resources. I remain convinced that communities should be able to bring forward a vision for the development of their areas. And for those to be taken seriously by planning authorities. This chimes with other work in community empowerment, listening to communities should be the norm in all public bodies. I urge the committee not to support Mr Whiteman's amendment, and I move amendment 177. Thank you Minister. Monica Lennon to speak to amendment 204, and other amendments—oh sorry, my apologies, Graham Simpson—completely, Mr Joe. Graham, my apologies. Graham Simpson to speak to amendment 78, and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. It can be hard to keep up with this process, but let's deal with amendment 78, and I'll say at the outset that I do welcome the minister's support for this amendment. The committee spent a good deal of time looking at local place plans, and it's fair to say that we were unanimous that they could be a good idea, but not enough thought had been given to how they could work in practice. Communities can produce plans for their areas that councils should, quote, have regard to, which means that they could have regard to them and then quickly disregard them. Even the alternative wording where councils must take account of those plans is that it's little better, and the worry for the committee is that people could spend a lot of time and money producing plans for their area that ultimately go nowhere. We heard evidence during a visit to Lynlithgow that plans can be produced, which are then disregarded by a council. That's the council's right, of course. It's for the democratically elected body to make the final decision, but why raise people's hopes? My amendment 78 convener replicates the recommendation of the committee. Once again, it was designed to enhance community engagement, and that's what the intention is behind it. Andy Wightman will speak to his own amendment. He wishes to see that section removed entirely. I could easily have supported that view, but given that the minister is prepared to engage on improving this idea, I would be prepared not to support Mr Wightman. If the minister is happy to support my amendment, I won't support Mr Wightman, because I do think that there are some legs in this idea. I think that we can improve it. We need to improve it. We do need to have more detailed discussions ahead of stage 3. If we want people involved in the planning system, we have to mean it. We have to be serious about it. This could be a good idea, but it's not there yet. It needs some work. As I say, I appreciate the comments around my own amendment. I hope that that will go through, and I won't support Mr Wightman's on this occasion. This time, Monica Lennon will speak to amendment 204 and other amendments. Thank you, convener. I think that on local police plans we get into some fundamental issues again about why we have this bill in the first place. The minister talked about my amendment 204, 205 and 206, and I think that the minister said that he felt that local police plans had been misunderstood. Just to be clear, minister, it's not that I or others misunderstand them, but I think that there are lots of contradictions coming from the Government in terms of the bill. On the one hand, we have agreed that there needs to be a purpose for planning, although members have different views about what that purpose should reflect. I have strongly argued for a rights-based approach to planning and a real focus on outcomes. We have to be clear about why we are bothering to plan in the first place. Key to all of that is a commitment to a plan-led system. I know that the minister talks a lot about front-loading and that early engagement and making sure that all parts of the community can have a stake in the development plan. That's what I think that we are all trying to get to with the bill. That brings us on to local police plans, which is a new proposition. What would the role of local police plans be? That's why I am at the place where I support Andy Wightman's amendment 87, which is about taking local police plans out of the bill. It's not because I don't want the community to be involved. I have argued for people to have more rights, including children, young people, disabled people through access panels and community councils. All proposals that the minister has argued against and some members of the committee have voted against. All the evidence that we heard throughout stage 1—if you just bear with me—all the evidence that we heard—I know that some members have joined us a couple of sessions ago, a couple of days ago. Outside of Parliament, we went to a full-day conference and we were in different parts of the country. We had very long evidence panels where we heard people's aspirations to get involved, but they want to be involved in the development plan. They don't want to have to have a parallel process where there is a community second chance at updating the development plan. We know that there is a lot of financial pressure within local authorities. I know that in the financial memorandum, the Government set out what those local police plans would cost. Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland felt that that might be quite a conservative estimate. I should remain committed to that. I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I hope that all my years of professional experience have not been wasted in that I don't misunderstand what the minister is saying, but those local police plans—the amendments that I have put forward, and with Andy Wightman on this, I am not convinced that the bill could live without them, because I think that we all want to focus on getting development plans right. However, if we are going to have them, we have to do it in a proportionate way. That is what 204, 205 and 206 are about. We have to look about timescales, because we could have a local development plan freshly adopted, and then just five minutes later or six months later a year later, a proposal for a local police plan emerges. On the one hand, I think that what the minister is arguing for in this bill is that we streamline planning, that we give certainty to everyone, but in particular to developers and investors who want to have a good handle on risk to development. If we are going to have local police plans bringing them forward at the midpoint in the 10-year local development plan, I think that that would be reasonable. 205, where I am saying that we should set out reasons for saying why the LDP should be amended, again I think that that is quite sensible. I think that people need to be able to follow and have that understanding. I think that that chimes with some earlier things that we have talked about in terms of Graham Simpson's amendments. If we are going to talk about whether there is an effective or sufficient supply of housing land, that could be a trigger for amending, but you are setting out a reason to make clear parameters. I have to say that those local police plans, if they come forward at a very local level, they are going to be neighbourhood based, they are going to be at a ward level. I think that the role of local councillors is absolutely fundamental. It is not about giving local councillors, I think, the word the minister used with prominence, but it is about making sure that there is that proper engagement with local councillors, because they will not all sit on planning committees. I will let Annabelle Ewing come in at this point so I can refer back to my notes. On the issue of local police plans, what the Government is seeking to do is to front load community engagement, I personally think that that is a good thing, and I will be happy to support the amendment. To be fair, I thought that that was a slight mischaracterisation of what the minister has been saying and how, indeed, some members of the committee have voted. Monica had her own amendments on looking at the involvement of young people and so on. The minister had a different approach. I felt that the minister's approach was a better one, including from a drafting perspective, and I was very happy to support it. Thank you, Annabelle, for your comments. I think that, just to go back a minute, I am still unconvincing. I have been all throughout the assessment of the bill. One of the things that I wanted to pick up on and I have lost my place again, I think that if we want to strengthen the development plan, which I know the minister does, I just do not fully understand the role of local police plans in that. I know, for example, that there is strong opinion in communities to reform other parts of the planning process, like appeals, and we will come to that at a later stage. Some of the amendments that I have brought forward in that regard are very much tied to the development plan. That is about not just allowing people to go off in a tangent and bring things forward that do not comply with the development plan and putting in those checks and balances. I know that the minister is not keen on that approach, but having those local police plans come in at any moment in that 10-year cycle does not really allow things to bed in either. I remain unconvinced. I do have some concerns about the resourcing of local police plans, because the minister can remind me about the projected costs, but we are talking about tens of thousands of pounds. I am not sure if that is the best use of resources when there is a lot more that we can do to make sure that communities genuinely get involved in the local development plan process and can be involved and empowered to have a voice when the plan needs to be reviewed, but there have to be quite clear triggers, because we could have a very crowded landscape of local police plans coming forward. I am not sure that planning authorities will have the resources and the time and effort to respond to them in the most positive way. Andy Wightman Thanks, convener. Section 9 of the bill provides that community bodies is defined to have a statutory right to prepare local police plans and that planning authorities must have regard or take account of them. In our stage 1 report, we concluded that, as things stand, the proposals for local police plans run the risk of being disregarded or ineffective. There are mixed views among those who provided written and oral evidence, with a common concern being that the risk at the time and effort spent on engagement with local police plan creation might be better spent on engaging in the local development plan process. Some amendments that have been tabled include the ones in this group to enhance local police plans. I have no objection to that, but I do remain of the view that the case has not been made that these are a robust and meaningful contribution to the development planning process. My amendment 87, therefore, deletes section 9 of the bill. If further work can be done before stage 3 that addresses the concerns expressed by the committee and by myself and others, I am open to considering supporting the proposal. I feel rather uncomfortable proposing that we remove a provision intended to engage local people in the planning system. However, I do not think that we should be proceeding with a provision if it does not provide genuine meaningful process for people as part of the planning system. I reject the notion that we should do what England has done and make them a formal part. I agree with the minister on that in correspondence to the committee that he highlighted that point. However, I am not persuaded at this point that local police plans could make a meaningful contribution given the task that is in front of communities, given the fact that many disadvantaged communities will be in most need of effective planning, but are least able to deliver them. On Monica Lennon's amendment 204, I mean that this is part of the confusion about this. What are we trying to do with this? I have some sympathy with a bit of certainty, but if they are to be loose things, then leave them loose. I am not mindy to support 204, but I am content to support 205 and 206. Thank you very much. I start off with the comments that were made by Mr Simpson and his amendment. I recognise the concerns that Mr Simpson had with local police plans being prepared and not going anywhere. He described current situations. We should note that there is no current place for local police plans in the system. That colours some folks' experiences of what goes on at present. I hope that the committee will appreciate the amendments that I have brought forward to make sure that there is a clear place for local police plans and a procedure for local authorities to deal with them. I have made it no secret, convener, that I want as many folk involved in planning as possible. I have talked at length at various points of trying to intertwine community planning and spatial planning, because community planning in many areas of Scotland has many, many people involved. I want to see that level of involvement in spatial planning. I do not think with the best will in the world that there will be a huge amount of folk clamouring to get involved necessarily in development planning because they are interested in their own place. I think that, although they might not initially be happy to deal with development planning, getting involved in a local place plan may move them on those stages. Again, I want to see as many people as possible getting involved at every stage. I think that local place plans are designed to give a route for communities into the local development plan. At the moment, as we have heard, communities can put together plans that go nowhere. I think that what we are doing is designed to deal with that. I certainly will, Mr Gibson. One of the issues that really concerned the committee—and it has already been touched on—is the fact that there are many communities that do not have the community capacity to do that. You would only end up with a very patchy situation across Scotland, and that is the real reason why members of the committee have great concerns about that. I have talked to the committee convener and the finance committee about where resources should go to help those communities that maybe do not have the skills and the resource at this moment in time. Ms Lennon mentioned how much will some of that cost. The Scottish Government, as I have said previously, prepared to put resources in to support in communities, including through our making places initiative. We are also working with PAS and the Scottish Centre for Community Development to help to inform the future guidance and support for both communities and planning authorities in that regard. I would hope that planning authorities themselves will put major emphasis on helping those communities that need it most. We will look further at that if that is required. As I have said throughout the process, convener, local place plans have a huge potential to engage people in the planning system at the earliest stages, setting out how they want their places to develop and ensuring that it is taken into account in a local development plan. Those are key elements in the reform. Those are key elements in getting more people engaged in planning, which I think that we all want to see. Two points. One day that Monica Lennon had raised earlier on, you said that she asked for a figure that was made available in the financial memorandum. The other is, I get a funny one, just as Kenny Gibson was talking about making his intervention, I was just writing down exactly the same thing. Will funding be made available to make it easier for communities who would be struggling to take part in those local plans? We already make funding available, and I am willing to look at that in the future. However, as I said at the finance committee, local authorities themselves in terms of the savings that they can make if the system changes the way that we envisage should be putting money into that as well. In terms of the figures that were given to the finance committee, we estimate that the average cost of a local place plan would be around £13,000 based on about 92 local place plans a year. We reckon that that would be around £1.2 million per annum. As I said, this is about getting as many people involved as possible in planning. I recognise that we still have a bit of work to do in all of this. That is why I am quite happy to support Mr Simpson's amendment and to have further discussion about some of the issues that have been raised. However, I think that it would be very sad, convener, if the committee were to remove this section from the bill. The question therefore is that amendment 177 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Amendment 177 is agreed to by acclamation. There is going to be a change of official, so we will suspend very briefly. Thank you. I now call amendment 2, in the name of Lois MacDonald. Welcome, Lois. Grouped with amendments 305, 181, 306, 258 and 1. Thank you very much, convener. I am delighted that all amendments in this group support the principle of agent of change, which was endorsed by the committee at stage 1. The question now is how best to go beyond the principle and to give it practical effect. The amendments in my name are designed explicitly to provide a clear legal basis for planning authorities to reject development applications that would compromise the operation of existing cultural venues in an unreasonable way. That goes further than the general provision proposed by other amendments in the group, recognising the need for a decisive shift in favour of live music venues in particular, many of which have closed due to adverse planning decisions in recent years. That is a recent development. In the last 10 years, we have seen the return of residential accommodation and people to the centres of our towns and cities. That is in itself very welcome, but one unintended consequence of that has been to impact on live music venues and other cultural venues in town and city centres. A third of those across the country have closed in that decade. That is clearly very significant indeed. Jurisdictions across Great Britain, the Welsh Government, the UK Government in relation to England and also Greater London have sought to respond to those changes by introducing or updating planning guidance. The minister did the same in Scotland a few months ago and that is welcome, but the fact that this bill is before us in this committee today gives an opportunity to go beyond what is happening in England and Wales and for Scotland to give a lead in providing real protection for live music venues in the law itself. Amendment 306 says that planning permission may not be granted if a development would require unreasonable adjustments by an existing cultural venue or if the developer failed to include adequate noise mitigation measures in the development application. In addition, there would be a higher test for applications in or near to areas designated as culturally significant zones as set out in amendment 305. Here there would be a presumption against residential development unless the developer could demonstrate conclusively, could prove that there would be no unreasonable adjustments required by existing cultural venues as a result. The designation of a culturally significant zone would not only implement the principle of agent of change in relation to new development, but it would also introduce a degree of protection for venues against a change of occupier in a neighbouring building. That might be, for example, where a neighbour who enjoys live music is replaced by one who objects to it. As the law stands, that new neighbour's complaints can lead to that venue being closed down even though the venue was there first, but with designation in this way, that would no longer be the case. Amendment 2, convener, is a consequential amendment enabling culturally significant zones to be taken into account in the preparation of development plans. Amendment 258 would make the music venues trust a statutory consultee on the same basis as the theatre's trust, which is entitled to comment on any planning application that would affect an existing theatre. That would acknowledge for the first time the cultural significance of live music venues on a par with other cultural venues, and therefore, I think, is significant. Now, the other amendments, both Adam Tomkins' amendment and the Minister's amendment, introduced general provisions, general duties, and Adam Tomkins' amendment goes further in defining development close to live music venues and other sources of noise as noise-sensitive development and prohibits planning authorities from imposing requirements on the noise source as part of a grant to planning permission to the development. Therefore, I think that it is stronger than the amendment in the name of the minister, but in any case, both would be eclipsed in relation to existing cultural venues by amendment 306 and in relation to culturally significant zones by amendment 305. Because they have a wider application, they would still have effect if passed alongside the amendments in my name, and therefore, it is perfectly possible to vote for my amendments along with one or, indeed, both of the other amendments in this group. I would encourage committee members to do so today. Thank you very much. Minister, you were to speak to 2021. Thank you. We need to protect and encourage the significant cultural and economic contribution to our society from the music industry. We have a proud history of producing fabulous performers in great music here in Scotland. We must do what we can to support or establish and emerging musical talent to continue that tradition. However, one of the things which Mr MacDonald said was about people moving house. Planning cannot deal with different people moving into a house, who may not have the same opinion of the noise coming from their neighbouring venue, as their predecessor does. Planning cannot resolve that, and I think that we should put that very firmly on the record. Let me continue on around about requirements to mitigate the impact of existing noise from the local area on new development, where it should sit with the developer of that new development. Some very compelling evidence was produced at stage 1, and I recognise both the strength of feeling and the clear case to act to support our culture and the benefits of our nighttime economy. The committee will recall, as Mr MacDonald has already said, that I announced in February that the Government would seek to embed the agent of change principle in the next national planning framework. However, to ensure that that was implemented immediately, I also asked the chief planner to write to all authorities asking them to act on it with immediate effect. Amendment 181 in my name complements that commitment and takes it a step further by enshrining the need to thoroughly consider and where appropriate to mitigate the impact of noise from existing uses when considering planning permission for new development in its vicinity. Amendment 181 addresses noise sources generally because there are lots of different types of use and development that raise these issues, but it explicitly refers to the performance of live music. To ensure that there is no doubt about the need to protect this great resource for future generations. My amendment will enable regulations that will identify types of uses and developments and the circumstances to which the agent of change principle applies. It is important that we do this well and in close consultation with those that it will affect, but crucially, amendment 181 will place a firm duty on the applicant to provide a statement assessing the possible impacts of noise and a firm duty on planning authorities to take full account of the evidence about noise. If granting planning permission, authorities must be clear in their own minds and explain why, within the terms of the application and decision, the likely noise impact would be acceptable. Amendment 181 will ensure that noise issues are taken seriously and that all possible steps can be taken to support development delivery while also protecting our existing uses and businesses, including our highly valued cultural venues. We have shared my amendment 181 with the music venue owners and other stakeholders in the music industry, and the feedback has been positive. I certainly welcome Lewis MacDonald and Adam Tomkins, who are also supporting the agent of change principle. I am unable to support Adam Tomkins amendment number one, although, for reasons that I have just explained, I absolutely support the intent of it. However, while the planning system expects appropriate conditions to be attached to a planning permission, conditions cannot require action to be taken by a third party who has no direct link to the development or the site. Mr Tomkins' amendment does not change the current position. I cannot give my support to the amendments in this group in the name of Mr MacDonald due to their impact, both for the operation of the planning system and for the need for us to maintain that essential mix of uses throughout our town centres that help to bring our places to life. It is difficult to see how amendment 305 on culturally significant zones would work, or where they would be brought forward when our culturally significant sites and venues, appropriately, in my opinion, are scattered throughout our towns and cities, contributing to the overall vitality and the local economies of the communities that they sit in. I also have concerns through the designating culturally significant zones could lead to a clustering of venues, so disincentivising other uses needed to maintain vibrant communities, especially with the risk of a presumption against some development up to 100 metres beyond that zone. Development plans can all already designate land linked to policy, as already happens for a range of matters, including town centres. Planning authorities can already set policies in relation to areas or properties that they want to see protected for their cultural significance. Our reforms are about delivering good development and removing unnecessary process from the planning system. Amendments 205 would serve to add process and uncertainty with no clear purpose or benefit. Mr MacDonald's amendment 258 is, I believe, unnecessary. If a planning application is made for development on land on which there is an existing music venue, then the venue operators themselves will already be notified and they can choose whether or not to involve the music venue's trust. There is also a burden of duty in associated costs placed on statutory consultees in the planning system, which we need to be carefully considered. Other statutory consultees are set out in secondary legislation and this is something that I am more than happy to explore when revising the relevant regulations. I am particularly concerned by amendment 306, also in the name of Mr MacDonald. It introduces a blanket requirement to refuse planning permission for residential use in certain circumstances. The new section 37a refers to unreasonable adjustments to the operation of existing cultural venues, facilities or uses. It gives no guide as to what sort of adjustment might be unreasonable or what criteria should be used to assess this. Subsection 2 would in effect create a presumption against the grant of planning permission for residential development within 100 metres of a culturally significant zone. The onus placed on the developer to prove that no unreasonable adjustments would seem to be near impossible to meet given that what is unreasonable in this context is not described by the amendment and could be taken to mean any adjustment which the operator of the venue may not wish to see. Given that a culturally significant zone can comprise a single building and that a planning authority in terms of the proposed new section 56a4 are required to designate where a valid request is made, it would set up the potential for a series of overlapping areas where there is a presumption of no residential development. We would normally expect a refusal if the impact on new development from existing noise sources would be unacceptable but that must be a decision for the planning authority to make taking full and fair account of the development plan and all material considerations. My amendment 181 respects the role of planning authorities and the planning profession to reach reason judgments based on best information rather than tying their hands. It more appropriately and proportionately ensures the issues around the impact of noise are considered effectively before any decision is made on an application for planning permission. I asked the committee to give its support to my amendment 181 to embed the agent of change principle into the planning system and I ask that you do not support the amendments in the names of Mr Macdonald and Mr Tomkins. Before I let Adam Tomkins in, can I just say that the minister will be delighted to hear that this is the last section that we are going to be discussing today so that your voice should be okay? He told out for the rest of the day that it was getting a bit... Well, to be fair, I think that there will be people applauding all over the world. Good morning, everyone. I welcome the fact that there appears to be universal cross-party support now for the principle of agent of change and I agree with Lewis Macdonald and he says that the question now is how we deliver that in legislation. I think that it is imperative that it is delivered in primary legislation and not merely in regulations or in guidance although, of course, regulations and guidance must be in accord with what primary legislation says about agent of change. I also agree very much with and welcome Lewis Macdonald's comments that we can support here or that members of the committee can support here all of the opposition amendments, those in my name and those in his name. They complement one another. They overlap to some extent but they complement one another. Convener, the agent of change principle shifts responsibility, as we've heard, for mitigating the impact of noise from an existing music venue to a developer moving into the area and this, as Mr Macdonald has said, has become a particular problem in our city centres at the moment because of the regeneration of those city centres as places to live and I declare an interest of somebody who lived in Glasgow city centre for four and a half years and certainly could hear quite a lot of noise at that time. It means, the principle means in essence, that those bringing about a change must take responsibility for its impact. It's really as simple as that and the key point is chronology. We want to avoid a situation where an existing music venue business finds that as a result of a developer moving into the area, fresh noise mitigation measures must be put in place at the venue's expense. As the law stands at the moment, that's exactly what's happening. Responsibility for managing and mitigating the impact of noise on neighbouring residents and businesses lies with the business or activity that's making the noise regardless of how long the noise-generating business or activity has been operating in the area and this is causing a crisis in the live music industry in particular in Glasgow at the moment as members will know. It is threatening the very existence of King Tuts. It is threatening the existence of the sub-club to of the principle live music venues in Glasgow city centre. Just last week I was at a meeting hosted in Glasgow by the Night Time Industries Association at which these concerns were raised. KSG Acustics who are advising King Tuts and the sub-club with regard to the legal action that they're both having reluctantly to take at the moment have explained that they support the opposition amendments in this group but not the government amendment in this group because the government amendment in this group they think doesn't go far enough. Convener, my amendment is designed to ensure that the spirit of agent of change which is to ensure that venues and new developments can co-locate, this is in no sense an attempt to restrict the planning system, can be put onto the face of primary legislation in Scots law. My amendment was primarily lodged as I think my remarks have made plain to address concerns from the live music community that the current system is inflicting escalating costs on music venues but it is deliberately broad in scope so that the underlying principle can apply also in other sectors. The music venue trust which gave evidence to this committee in its stage 1 inquiry is supportive of all of the opposition amendments in this group but is not supportive of the Scottish Government's amendment 181 because in the music venue trust's view that amendment 181 could fail to deliver the desired policy outcomes and that is a view which with respect to the minister I share. I do have some concerns about whether all of Lewis MacDonald's amendments are strictly necessary and whether some of them in some respects go too far. Amendment 306 in particular has the potential I think to obstruct the planning system by imposing a blanket ban on residential development in town centres where there are cultural venues or in particular where there are clusters of cultural venues and I heard what the minister had to say about that. The starting assumption in amendment 306 if I have read it correctly is that the application for a new development must be refused if it is within a cultural zone or within a hundred metres of one unless proved otherwise but I think that's an issue that can be tweaked at stage 3 so I would urge members of the committee to support that amendment notwithstanding those reservations at this point and we can revisit it between now and stage 3 with a view to seeing whether we really need to go quite as far as that particular wording. There are I think with respect to problems with the amendment 181 in Mr Stewart's name. The first is that it doesn't do enough to put the principle of agent of change on the face of primary legislation, it relies too much on regulations and the second is that as the music venue trust has said it's not transparent from amendment 181 how exactly firm duties are to be imposed or placed on developers to provide a noise impact assessment at their own cost or that the developer should undertake mitigation measures themselves so that those are the reservations I think that we have about amendment 181 it is still possible even if amendment 181 were accepted that it could be used against live music venues such as King Tuts and the sub-club in the city that I seek to represent and so for all of those reasons, convener, I would urge members of the committee to support all of the opposition amendments in this group and to reject amendment 181. Thank you very much. Lewis MacDonald to wind up. Thank you very much. The minister said in opening his remarks that planning cannot deal with a change of neighbour well I think that I would encourage the minister to be more ambitious than that planning can and should reflect our priorities as a society or priorities as a parliament and this is an ideal opportunity to demonstrate what our priorities are and to put them into effect we need to go beyond simply reminding planning authorities of their existing duties or requiring reasons to be laid out in a decision notice we need to actually seek a change in the culture and the practical experience of music venues over recent years which is that the planning system is effectively working to close venues down and therefore we need to put in place adequate provision and protection to ensure that that ceases to happen. The minister said that music venues trust or music venues operators welcomed amendment 181 it's important to say that every step the government has taken there's been two or three different steps taken in the last six months all of those are steps in the right direction but this is an urgent situation and short steps in the right direction are not enough we need an actual change in the basis of the law and a change in the basis on which we go forward. I'm happy to work with both Mr McDonald and Mr Tomkins to get some of this right absolutely right for stage three because I do think in some of these amendments there are some real difficulties which could create areas where development would not take place and I do think that that is probably not the intention but that is what is laid out in the amendment to speak forward by Mr McDonald. I would reiterate what I said previously I understand the difficulties that there are in certain places around about live music venues and that's why I moved as quickly as I did in terms of writing to planning authorities but I would reiterate that planning cannot deal with folk moving into existing properties, existing housing who may not have the same opinions of those folks that were in those houses before them and I think we've got to recognise that and also let folk out there understand that this applies to new development and not to what already exists because I think that some folk out there are a little bit confused about what all of this is about. I hope that the amendments in my name will remove that confusion by addressing both the issue of new development and the issue of changes in an existing neighbourhood. It is very important I think to be more ambitious than the minister has been in seeing what the planning system can do and the planning system can protect live music venues. Adam Tompkins mentioned the case of King Tuts, the minister will know of other cases in both Aberdeen and Edinburgh and I'm sure there are others across the country where what we need is provision that protects those venues against development which we know before it happens if it happens will lead to the closure of those venues. That is the seriousness of the situation that live music venues currently face and the reason for taking action in the way that we've described. The minister was concerned that unreasonable adjustments were not defined in the amendment 306. No they're not. The expectation of course is that the Government will bring forward the necessary regulations as under any other primary legislation in order to define that closely and precisely. I've heard both from the minister and Mr Tompkins concerns that one of the perhaps unintended consequences of amendment 306 is that it could prevent people living in these culturally significant zones. I'm a bit like Mr Tompkins, I also used to live in a city centre, it was Newcastle and within a stone's throw of my flat was a dance studio just around the corner was a nightclub and I enjoyed living there. So I'm sure that's not what not your intention. Are you prepared to look at this for stage 3? I certainly welcome Adam Tompkins comments around the way we address stage 3. I prefer his proposition which is that we agree these amendments today and come back at stage 3 to look at any refining that's required rather than the minister's proposal which I think is not to take these amendments forward and then trust that he will come up with something that goes some of the way towards what we're seeking to do. The intention is not to prevent people living in culturally significant zones, the intention is to signal that if you choose to occupy a flat next to King Tuts that's a good thing if you like live music but it's not a very good thing if you want to get King Tuts closed down and I think that is the nature of the choices that have to be made in this case and that's the reason that I will repress my amendments convener I believe that they do achieve what is required which is providing a clear legal basis for councils to protect and planning authorities to protect live music venues I think that's the right thing to do and I think that they will provide significant benefit in primary legislation that will protect our live music venues going forward. Okay thank you very much therefore the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to are we all agreed? Those in favour? Those opposed? That's 4-3 in favour the amendment is agreed to. I call amendment 129 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 177 the minister to move formally moved. The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to are we all agreed? That's agreed. Oh sorry my apologies I've never heard anybody. Right those in favour? Those opposed? The amendment is agreed 4-3 5-2 right don't listen to me don't listen to me right my apologies right the the coty Alec Cole-Hamilton has said that he was not going to move the amendment 203 I call amendment 28 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 11 are we going to move that on the behalf of Daniel Johnson okay thank you therefore the question is that amendment 28 be agreed to are we all agreed? Those in favour? Those opposed? Amendment 28 falls. The question is therefore that section 7 be agreed to are we all agreed? The question section 7 is agreed to by a claim. I call amendment 113 in the name of the minister minister to move formally or not? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 67 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 66. Andy Wightman to move or not? Moved. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to are we all agreed? Those in favour? 4. Those against? 3. The amendment is carried 4-3 I call amendment 68 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 66. Andy Wightman to move or not? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 131 in the name of the minister be previously debated with amendment 66. The question is therefore that amendment 131 agreed. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to are we all agreed? Thank you. I call amendment 133 in the name of the minister. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 134 in the name of the minister. Moved. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. It's agreed by a claim. I call amendment 135 in the name of the minister. Not moved. Thank you and I call amendment 136 in the name of the minister. Not moved. The question is that section 8 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Agreed by a claim. I call amendment 78 in the name of Graham Simpson already debated with amendment 177. Graham Simpson to move or not moved? Moved. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Agreed by a claim. I call amendments 137, 138, 178 and 179 all in the name of the minister and all previously debated with amendment 177. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 137, 178 and 179? The question is that amendments 137, 138, 178 and 179 are agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. I call amendment 204 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 177. Monica Lennon to move or not move. The question is that amendment 204 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Three. Those opposed? Four. The amendment 204 falls. I call amendment 180 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 177. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 180 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. By a claim. I call amendment 205 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 177. Monica Lennon to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 205 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment 205 is agreed to. I call amendment 206 in the name of Monica Lennon already debated with amendment 177. Monica Lennon to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 206 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Those in favour? Four. Those opposed? Three. The amendment 206 is agreed to. I call amendment 139 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 177. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 139 be agreed to are we all agreed? Yes. Agreed. I call amendment 87 in the name of Andy Wightman already debated with amendment 177. Andy Wightman to move or not move? Moved. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to are we all agreed? Those in favour? Those opposed? It's the amendment falls, both of them. Yes, so the question is that section... No, I don't need to, right? Well, in that case, that's the end of stage 2. Can I thank the minister, his officials and the other MSPs who attended today's meeting? Day 4 of stage 2 will take place on 24 October, when the committee's target is the end of part 3. Because of October recess, any further amendments up to the end of part 3 should be lodged by 12 noon on Thursday 4 October, and that concludes the public part of today's meeting. Thank you very much. And I suspend the meeting.